Just Ask Grandpa - A Christian answers tough questions and debunks common myths

gramster
Theist
Posts: 501
Joined: 2010-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Just Ask Grandpa - A Christian answers tough questions and debunks common myths

Way too many "delusional myths", and unanswered questions on this site. One cannot rationally disbelieve something unless they have a clear picture of what it is that they do not believe. Since I do not see these myths and false perceptions answered properly in terms of simple reasoning I shall attempt to do it myself.

Myth #1. God will burn "sinners" in "HELL" throughout the ceaseless ages of eternity. This is not supported in the bible. It is merely a false doctrine that entered the church during the dark ages. It has it's roots in paganism. Unfortunately most Christians still believe this myth. Ultimately those who choose to accept Gods gift of eternal life will go on to live forever in a world without all the suffering and horrors of this world. Those who do not accept His gift will cease to exist and have nothing to do with God as they have chosen and wished for. Sounds pretty fair to me!

If God were indeed to burn anybody throughout the ceaseless ages of eternity (including the devil) He would be the most terrible monster one could imagine. I myself would join the movement in defying and blasting God. Fortunately we have a loving creator God that will not and would not do that.

Rather than writing a 20 page study on the topic of death and hell, I will just give a website that those interested can visit that will clearly and definitively clear this myth up. It is hell truth.com.

 


gramster
Theist
Posts: 501
Joined: 2010-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Repeat and Enlarge

jcgadfly wrote:

gramster wrote:

As for the Jews, for now, we will go with "I don't place much stock on what they believe". You are free to place whatever value you wish. There is some merit in the study of ancient Jewish beliefs as it can help us gain some perspective. But that's about it.

As for freeminer as an ally, he has his own views. I am sure they differ some from mine. From time to time I will probably refer to his blags just as I do yours.

As to making "the jump" from the prophecies referring to just one small region of the planet to the whole earth, you are getting ahead of yourself. I have as of yet made any such claims. If and/or when I do, I will at that point give my reasons for doing so.

As for Medo-Persia being inferior referring to culture rather than length of reign and power that is the way I see it. You see it differently. That is a matter of personal interpretation. Either view could be correct.

Yes, Greek culture is full of paganism and pagan values. It does not agree with Christianity.

As we continue, I will focus on the kingdoms I believe are being referred to and why. As we go forward I believe the other kingdoms will drop out along the way. That is what we will be looking at.aka

Interesting.

Are you saying you don't place much stock in the Bible? A bunch of Jews did write it (except for the heretics that wrote the parts you like aka the replacement religion).

Greek culture doesn't agree with Christianity? True enough. Christianity is a Roman construct whose texts were written in Greek. Why else would the religion be so friendly with the conquerors?

I look forward to your attempts at moving from Alexander and Antiochus to the EU vs. Israel and the US, for example. You might even go as far as including bin Laden. Or how when Daniel mentions "days" it really means "years"

 

For now I will ignore your quips about Christianity and get down to business. As for Antiochus, the later days, and a day for a year, you are again getting ahead of yourself.

When we study Daniel's prophecies about the kingdoms we find a pattern of "repeat and enlarge". Each vision given Daniel became progressively detailed. We see the same kingdoms but get more specifics. I will give a brief overview.

 

Daniel 2. This prophecy must foretell as it says "what will be in the latter days". Since it starts with Babylon and ends in the later days it stands to reason that it refers to major players along the way. Kingdoms relevant to God's people starting with the first kingdom to follow Babylon. So we will start there.

1. We have the head of gold - which we know is Babylon.

2. We have the chest and arms of silver - which I believe is Medo-Persia.

3. We have the belly and thighs of bronze - which I believe is Greece.

4. We have the legs of Iron - which I believe to be Rome. Out of this kingdom we get a divided kingdom which shall last until God sets up His kingdom, which is still in the future.

Since we still have some debate to the identity of these kingdoms we will hold open the possibility I may be wrong. We will continue to Daniel 7 to see if we find any of these kingdoms there and look at any conflicting differences or similarities.

Daniel 7. Here we have four beasts representing four kingdoms.

1. We have a lion with eagles wings - which I believe to be Babylon.

2. We have a bear raised up on on side - which I believe to be Medo-Persia.

3. We have a leopard with four wings and four heads - which I believe to be Greece.

4. We have a dreadful, terrible, and exceedingly strong beast with iron teeth, and 10 horns - which I believe to be Rome. Out of this beast comes a little horn we will discuss later.

Daniel 8 gives further details.

1. The first kingdom is not mentioned here. This prophecy was given toward the end of Nebuchadnezzars Babylonian kingdom.

2. We have a Ram with two horns, one higher than the other - It is identified for us as the "kings of Media and Persia".

3. We have a Goat which "came...not touching the ground". We would call this really flying. The goat is identified for us as Greece. It had four horns which are identified as "four kingdoms (that) shall arise out of that nation.

4. We have a little horn which will require much more detailed investigation to positively identify. I will do this later separately.

Some points of interest.

The first kingdom in Daniel 7 being described as a loin with eagles wings fits nicely as a symbol for Babylon. The lion-shaped bas-reliefs on Babylons baked-brick walls, and the large stone lion that still crouches over a fallen stone woman in Babylon help attest to this. The British Museum's finding of lions with eagles wings in Babylon also add weight to this. I'll not get to deep into the archeology in this brief overview.

The second kingdom in Daniel 7 being a bear raised up on one side - coincides with the Ram in Daniel 8 which is identified as Medo-Persia that had one horn larger than the other. (Symbols of Persia's being the greater). The three ribs in the bears mouth coincide with the nations of Egypt, Babylon and Lydia, which were overthrown by Medo-Persia.

The third kingdom in Daniel 7 being a leopard having four wings - symbolizes the speed in which Alexander the Great conquered the then known world. This coincides with the goat that came "not touching the ground", or flying. The four heads represent the four generals of Alexander and coincide with Daniel 8's four horns which are identified for us as four kingdoms.

The fourth beast of Daniel 7 and the little horn of Daniel 8 will be addressed separately as they are much too involved to go into in this brief overview.

To me the identification of these kingdoms is obvious. You probably disagree. As we move forward I will strengthen these assumptions. Right now I am just asserting that this interpretation fits quite nicely. If you can see any reason why it does not work let me know. If you concede this is a possibility (not necessarily the only one) than I will proceed deeper into the fourth beast and the little horn. 

This will get a lot more detailed and other options will drop out one by one along the way.

More later.

Gramps

 


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
freeminer wrote: Quote:1.

freeminer wrote:

 

Quote:
1. So you only know part of the law of conservation of matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed by can be changed from one to the other. Do you your Bible that selectively? Seems like you got plenty of stupid to me.

I'd have thought you'd at least have had the sense to quit digging when in a hole! Apparently not! You will now please explain to the assembled masses how you extract genesis ex nihilo from any Universal Law.

 

Quote:
2. No, I'm not my own little god. I just do this little thing called taking responsibility for my words and actions.

no you don't you're answerable only to the law of the land 

Quote:
Yeah, it's an asshole thing to do but I don't have a God I can blame things on or that has such a poor ego that he needs credit for my efforts.

I'm aware that we need to make allowances but God "needs' nothing by definition.

Quote:
3. You believe he exists and are absolving him -

but you said you were........no I don't recognise the need of "absolution" because, not being a 'cafeteria Christian', I recognise what you call his "evil" as his justice. You may have justice or mercy........your call.

Quote:
I feel obligated to let people know when they are wasting time that could be used more constructively. I'm such a bastard.

you didn't let me know........but that's ok.

Quote:
4. Oh, i have proof Machiavelli exists - see, he wrote these things called books and plays. What do you have for God?

oh, he wrote a whole library of books.........and  the whole library are bestsellers........pretty cool!

Quote:
5. You mean the God-concept that you're showing to me with Biblical support? No, it didn't occur to me that there were things I didn't  understand because I researched the Bible for myself.
unfortunately, this guarantees nothing.........liberal theologians spend whole lifetimes on it and are still none the wiser.

Quote:
I didn't take the word of one of the many god-salesmen out there.

well, that's a start at least.

Quote:
6. Of course your Christianity applies everywhere - you cull out the parts that scare you.

I don't know where you got this idea from..........I'm perfectly prepared to say that Hell awaits you and why! 

Quote:
I don't know if I'd do a better job - I wouldn't require everyone to kiss my ass so it would definitely be different

there are a strictly limited number of people I require in contact with my ass and..........sorry to disappoint you, you're not on the list.

Quote:
7. I see you're not immune to the presumptions - you were just kind enough to reveal your lack of knowledge as well.

we await your answer to the ex nihilo genesis question with ill-suppressed wonderment! 

Quote:
Thanks so much, fuckwit.

aaaah! I see we've exhausted your vocabulary!

Quote:
8. freeminer, why are you so against relativism?

it's simply the last resort of those who've lost their grip on the real thing.........they go on using terms like "evil" without the vaguest clue what they're talking about............then they start believing the absurd, like ex nihilo genesis within a cause/effect system!! 

Quote:
Christians are the biggest relativists of all - they just say they don't have a personal conviction about <x> and it frees them up.

I can't imagine who you've been speaking to but I'm packed to the gunwhales with "personal conviction"

Quote:
9. Just for giggles, how did you get your atheist badge? Judging from your posts you're as atheist as Billy Graham.

I take that as a sincere compliment..........though I'm sure Graham is far too sanctified to use terms like "ass" unless donkeys are in view!........anyway, I'd quite like to hold on to it, however I came by it.

1. Creation ex nihilo is something I leave to you Christians> I believe that matter and/or energy were there at the beginning when space-time expanded. I do enjoy your crowing about your lack of knowledge.

2. Answerable to the laws of human society and my moral code, yes. Shame you can't say that - you use God to cover your ass. You need to make allowances for your God's inadequacies? I can see that, As for your god's needs, he craves worship, does he not?

3. God wrote all your books? Really? Didn't have the rocks to put his name on them, eh? What does it tel you about your God that people have "liberal" and "conservative" theologies for one absolute being?

4. Justice or mercy based solely on how deeply I kiss your God's ass? Where's the objective criteria?

5. Glad you liked the "fuckwit" name. Consider it an honor - not too many people are mindbogglingly stupid enough to get that out of me.

6. So, why do you believe in an ex nihilo creation in a cause/effect system?

7. When it comes to getting what you want or your "personal convictions", which goes away first?

8. Hey, if you want to keep a badge you got dishonestly, ok. I guess we know where your personal convictions are.

 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


gramster
Theist
Posts: 501
Joined: 2010-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Understanding Time Prophecies

In bible prophecy time can be either literal or symbolic. It is important to know the difference. A day can be one literal day, or it can be symbolic for a year. One example is in Ezekiel 4:6 "I have assigned you a number of days corresponding to the number of years of their iniquity". We will also discover that some of the Daniel prophecies can not be referring to literal time and make any sense.

In the bible we also find a month to be equal to 30 days. The flood story gives us a good example of this. Genesis 7:11 the flood event starts on the 2nd month 17th day, and Genesis 8:4 it ends on the 7th month 17th day. This comes out to exactly 5 months. In Genesis 8:24 it says the "water prevailed on the earth 150 days". 150 days/5 months = 30 days.

In Daniel the term Time or Times is also used. The term time is translated to equal one year and times or (two times) refers to 2 years. The word used is "iddan" translated by Strongs Hebrew Lexicoon "a set time: technically a year: time".

As we get into time prophecies we will hold the position that the passage could be literal or symbolic. We will examine both possibilities and see which makes sense.


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
gramster wrote:In bible

gramster wrote:

In bible prophecy time can be either literal or symbolic. It is important to know the difference. A day can be one literal day, or it can be symbolic for a year. One example is in Ezekiel 4:6 "I have assigned you a number of days corresponding to the number of years of their iniquity". We will also discover that some of the Daniel prophecies can not be referring to literal time and make any sense.

In the bible we also find a month to be equal to 30 days. The flood story gives us a good example of this. Genesis 7:11 the flood event starts on the 2nd month 17th day, and Genesis 8:4 it ends on the 7th month 17th day. This comes out to exactly 5 months. In Genesis 8:24 it says the "water prevailed on the earth 150 days". 150 days/5 months = 30 days.

In Daniel the term Time or Times is also used. The term time is translated to equal one year and times or (two times) refers to 2 years. The word used is "iddan" translated by Strongs Hebrew Lexicoon "a set time: technically a year: time".

As we get into time prophecies we will hold the position that the passage could be literal or symbolic. We will examine both possibilities and see which makes sense.

In other word, the prophecy can be interpreted to fit whatever conclusion is desired.

This issue is why the Bible "prophecies have a lot in common with the "prophecies" of Nostradamus.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


gramster
Theist
Posts: 501
Joined: 2010-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Specific and Detailed

jcgadfly wrote:

gramster wrote:

In bible prophecy time can be either literal or symbolic. It is important to know the difference. A day can be one literal day, or it can be symbolic for a year. One example is in Ezekiel 4:6 "I have assigned you a number of days corresponding to the number of years of their iniquity". We will also discover that some of the Daniel prophecies can not be referring to literal time and make any sense.

In the bible we also find a month to be equal to 30 days. The flood story gives us a good example of this. Genesis 7:11 the flood event starts on the 2nd month 17th day, and Genesis 8:4 it ends on the 7th month 17th day. This comes out to exactly 5 months. In Genesis 8:24 it says the "water prevailed on the earth 150 days". 150 days/5 months = 30 days.

In Daniel the term Time or Times is also used. The term time is translated to equal one year and times or (two times) refers to 2 years. The word used is "iddan" translated by Strongs Hebrew Lexicoon "a set time: technically a year: time".

As we get into time prophecies we will hold the position that the passage could be literal or symbolic. We will examine both possibilities and see which makes sense.

In other word, the prophecy can be interpreted to fit whatever conclusion is desired.

This issue is why the Bible "prophecies have a lot in common with the "prophecies" of Nostradamus.

Not at all. The prophecies in Daniel are very specific and detailed. A detailed examination will eliminate all but the correct interpretations. That is why it is important to establish sound basic principles.

I have not seen any Nostradamus prophecies that come anywhere close to paralleling those in the bible.


gramster
Theist
Posts: 501
Joined: 2010-05-15
User is offlineOffline
The 4th Beast of Daniel 7

 

gramster wrote:

As for the Jews, for now, we will go with "I don't place much stock on what they believe". You are free to place whatever value you wish. There is some merit in the study of ancient Jewish beliefs as it can help us gain some perspective. But that's about it.

As for freeminer as an ally, he has his own views. I am sure they differ some from mine. From time to time I will probably refer to his blags just as I do yours.

As to making "the jump" from the prophecies referring to just one small region of the planet to the whole earth, you are getting ahead of yourself. I have as of yet made any such claims. If and/or when I do, I will at that point give my reasons for doing so.

As for Medo-Persia being inferior referring to culture rather than length of reign and power that is the way I see it. You see it differently. That is a matter of personal interpretation. Either view could be correct.

Yes, Greek culture is full of paganism and pagan values. It does not agree with Christianity.

As we continue, I will focus on the kingdoms I believe are being referred to and why. As we go forward I believe the other kingdoms will drop out along the way. That is what we will be looking at.aka

Interesting.

Are you saying you don't place much stock in the Bible? A bunch of Jews did write it (except for the heretics that wrote the parts you like aka the replacement religion).

Greek culture doesn't agree with Christianity? True enough. Christianity is a Roman construct whose texts were written in Greek. Why else would the religion be so friendly with the conquerors?

I look forward to your attempts at moving from Alexander and Antiochus to the EU vs. Israel and the US, for example. You might even go as far as including bin Laden. Or how when Daniel mentions "days" it really means "years"

 

For now I will ignore your quips about Christianity and get down to business. As for Antiochus, the later days, and a day for a year, you are again getting ahead of yourself.

When we study Daniel's prophecies about the kingdoms we find a pattern of "repeat and enlarge". Each vision given Daniel became progressively detailed. We see the same kingdoms but get more specifics. I will give a brief overview.

 

Daniel 2. This prophecy must foretell as it says "what will be in the latter days". Since it starts with Babylon and ends in the later days it stands to reason that it refers to major players along the way. Kingdoms relevant to God's people starting with the first kingdom to follow Babylon. So we will start there.

1. We have the head of gold - which we know is Babylon.

2. We have the chest and arms of silver - which I believe is Medo-Persia.

3. We have the belly and thighs of bronze - which I believe is Greece.

4. We have the legs of Iron - which I believe to be Rome. Out of this kingdom we get a divided kingdom which shall last until God sets up His kingdom, which is still in the future.

Since we still have some debate to the identity of these kingdoms we will hold open the possibility I may be wrong. We will continue to Daniel 7 to see if we find any of these kingdoms there and look at any conflicting differences or similarities.

Daniel 7. Here we have four beasts representing four kingdoms.

1. We have a lion with eagles wings - which I believe to be Babylon.

2. We have a bear raised up on on side - which I believe to be Medo-Persia.

3. We have a leopard with four wings and four heads - which I believe to be Greece.

4. We have a dreadful, terrible, and exceedingly strong beast with iron teeth, and 10 horns - which I believe to be Rome. Out of this beast comes a little horn we will discuss later.

Daniel 8 gives further details.

1. The first kingdom is not mentioned here. This prophecy was given toward the end of Nebuchadnezzars Babylonian kingdom.

2. We have a Ram with two horns, one higher than the other - It is identified for us as the "kings of Media and Persia".

3. We have a Goat which "came...not touching the ground". We would call this really flying. The goat is identified for us as Greece. It had four horns which are identified as "four kingdoms (that) shall arise out of that nation.

4. We have a little horn which will require much more detailed investigation to positively identify. I will do this later separately.

Some points of interest.

The first kingdom in Daniel 7 being described as a loin with eagles wings fits nicely as a symbol for Babylon. The lion-shaped bas-reliefs on Babylons baked-brick walls, and the large stone lion that still crouches over a fallen stone woman in Babylon help attest to this. The British Museum's finding of lions with eagles wings in Babylon also add weight to this. I'll not get to deep into the archeology in this brief overview.

The second kingdom in Daniel 7 being a bear raised up on one side - coincides with the Ram in Daniel 8 which is identified as Medo-Persia that had one horn larger than the other. (Symbols of Persia's being the greater). The three ribs in the bears mouth coincide with the nations of Egypt, Babylon and Lydia, which were overthrown by Medo-Persia.

The third kingdom in Daniel 7 being a leopard having four wings - symbolizes the speed in which Alexander the Great conquered the then known world. This coincides with the goat that came "not touching the ground", or flying. The four heads represent the four generals of Alexander and coincide with Daniel 8's four horns which are identified for us as four kingdoms.

The fourth beast of Daniel 7 and the little horn of Daniel 8 will be addressed separately as they are much too involved to go into in this brief overview.

To me the identification of these kingdoms is obvious. You probably disagree. As we move forward I will strengthen these assumptions. Right now I am just asserting that this interpretation fits quite nicely. If you can see any reason why it does not work let me know. If you concede this is a possibility (not necessarily the only one) than I will proceed deeper into the fourth beast and the little horn. 

This will get a lot more detailed and other options will drop out one by one along the way.

More later.

Gramps

 

Now for the 4th beast of Daniel 7. This beast follows the Leopard with 4wings and 4 heads which remarkably resembles the male goat in Daniel 8 identified for us as Greece.

Daniel 7:7 "After this I saw...a fourth beast, dreadful and terrible, exceedingly strong. It had huge iron teeth; it was devouring, breaking in pieces, and trampling the residue with its feet...and it had 10 horns".

This is a description of a major power. We can easily rule out individual and rather insignificant kings and kingdoms.

Daniel 7:8 "I was considering the horns, and there was another horn, a little one, coming up among them, before whom three of the first horns were plucked out by the roots...eyes like the eyes of a man, and a mouth speaking pompous words".

The 10 horns and the little horn play an important role in identifying this 4th beast. Helpfully, Daniel is given an explanation specifically addressing these horns.

Daniel 7:23-25 "...the fourth beast shall be a fourth kingdom...the ten horns are ten kings who shall rise from this kingdom. And another shall arise after them; he shall be different from the first ones, and shall subdue three kings. He shall speak pompous words against the most high, shall persecute the saints...intend to change times and law...the saints shall be given into his hand for a time times and half a time".

Identifying points of the 4th beast:

1. An exceedingly great and powerful kingdom.

2. Had ten kings arise out of its dominion.

3. Had another power arise out of these 10 kingdoms after them that would speak pompous words against God, shall persecute the saints for a time times and half a time, and intend to change times and laws.

The only major kingdom following Greece (or Macedonia) that fits this mold is Rome. Rome was not conquered by a single power, or even an alliance of powers. The Goths or Germanic tribes began moving in and breaking up the Roman empire. These tribes became major nations of Western Europe that still exist today.

Anglo-Saxons became England

Franks became France

Burgundians became Switzerland

Visigoths became Spain

Alamanni became Germany

Suevi became Portugal

Lombards became Italy

Heruli destroyed completely AD 493

Vandals destroyed completely AD 534

Ostrogoths destroyed completely AD 538

These ten tribes correspond to the ten toes on the image, and the ten horns on the beast of Daniel 7. The three tribes that were destroyed are the three kings subdued by the little horn.

Next we will go further into the identifying points of the little horn. This will give us further details helping to confirm Rome as the 4th beast of Daniel 7. After that I will consider any alternate kingdom suggested as this 4th beast and see if it can possibly fit this prophecy.

 

 

 


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
gramster wrote:jcgadfly

gramster wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

gramster wrote:

In bible prophecy time can be either literal or symbolic. It is important to know the difference. A day can be one literal day, or it can be symbolic for a year. One example is in Ezekiel 4:6 "I have assigned you a number of days corresponding to the number of years of their iniquity". We will also discover that some of the Daniel prophecies can not be referring to literal time and make any sense.

In the bible we also find a month to be equal to 30 days. The flood story gives us a good example of this. Genesis 7:11 the flood event starts on the 2nd month 17th day, and Genesis 8:4 it ends on the 7th month 17th day. This comes out to exactly 5 months. In Genesis 8:24 it says the "water prevailed on the earth 150 days". 150 days/5 months = 30 days.

In Daniel the term Time or Times is also used. The term time is translated to equal one year and times or (two times) refers to 2 years. The word used is "iddan" translated by Strongs Hebrew Lexicoon "a set time: technically a year: time".

As we get into time prophecies we will hold the position that the passage could be literal or symbolic. We will examine both possibilities and see which makes sense.

In other word, the prophecy can be interpreted to fit whatever conclusion is desired.

This issue is why the Bible "prophecies have a lot in common with the "prophecies" of Nostradamus.

Not at all. The prophecies in Daniel are very specific and detailed. A detailed examination will eliminate all but the correct interpretations. That is why it is important to establish sound basic principles.

I have not seen any Nostradamus prophecies that come anywhere close to paralleling those in the bible.

If they are "very specific and detailed" why do they have such varied interpretations (all of them claiming to be correct)?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Response to Part 1 of Prophecies

 

freeminer wrote:

“Jesus said to them, ‘This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.’” Luke 24:44 (NIV)

The Old Testament verses are the prophecy; the New Testament verses proclaim the fulfillment. Check them all out for yourself!

 

  • Born of a virgin (Isaiah 7:14; Matthew 1:21-23)
  • A descendant of Abraham (Genesis 12:1-3; 22:18; Matthew 1:1; Galatians 3:16)
  • Of the tribe of Judah (Genesis 49:10; Luke 3:23, 33; Hebrews 7:14)
  • Of the house of David (2 Samuel 7:12-16; Matthew 1:1)
  • Born in Bethlehem (Micah 5:2, Matthew 2:1; Luke 2:4-7)
  • Taken to Egypt (Hosea 11:1; Matthew 2:14-15)
  • Herod´s killing of the infants (Jeremiah 31:15; Matthew 2:16-18)
  • Anointed by the Holy Spirit (Isaiah 11:2; Matthew 3:16-17)
  • Heralded by the messenger of the Lord (John the Baptist) (Isaiah 40:3-5; Malachi 3:1; Matthew 3:1-3)
  • Would perform miracles (Isaiah 35:5-6; Matthew 9:35)
  • Would preach good news (Isaiah 61:1; Luke 4:14-21)
  • Would minister in Galilee (Isaiah 9:1; Matthew 4:12-16) Would cleanse the Temple (Malachi 3:1; Matthew 21:12-13)
  • Would first present Himself as King 173,880 days from the decree to rebuild Jerusalem (Daniel 9:25; Matthew 21:4-11)
  • Would enter Jerusalem as a king on a donkey (Zechariah 9:9; Matthew 21:4-9)
  • Would be rejected by Jews (Psalm 118:22; I Peter 2:7)
  • Die a humiliating death (Psalm 22; Isaiah 53) involving:
    1. rejection (Isaiah 53:3; John 1:10-11; 7:5,48)
    2. betrayal by a friend (Psalm 41:9; Luke 22:3-4; John 13:18)
    3. sold for 30 pieces of silver (Zechariah 11:12; Matthew 26:14-15)
    4. silence before His accusers (Isaiah 53:7; Matthew 27:12-14)
    5. being mocked (Psalm 22: 7-8; Matthew 27:31)
    6. beaten (Isaiah 52:14; Matthew 27:26)
    7. spit upon (Isaiah 50:6; Matthew 27:30)
    8. piercing His hands and feet (Psalm 22:16; Matthew 27:31)
    9. being crucified with thieves (Isaiah 53:12; Matthew 27:38)
    10. praying for His persecutors (Isaiah 53:12; Luke 23:34)
    11. piercing His side (Zechariah 12:10; John 19:34)
    12. given gall and vinegar to drink (Psalm 69:21, Matthew 27:34, Luke 23:36)
    13. no broken bones (Psalm 34:20; John 19:32-36)
    14. buried in a rich man’s tomb (Isaiah 53:9; Matthew 27:57-60)
    15. casting lots for His garments (Psalm 22:18; John 19:23-24)
  • Would rise from the dead!! (Psalm 16:10; Mark 16:6; Acts 2:31)
  • Ascend into Heaven (Psalm 68:18; Acts 1:9)
  • Would sit down at the right hand of God (Psalm 110:1; Hebrews 1:3)

 

freeminer wrote:

I posted a whole list of prophecies relating to Christ. It is possible, if one is prepared to become irrational, to reject any level of proof.......it is all down to how much a man wants truth.

I take it the above is the"whole list of prophecies" you mention in post #350. I ignored it when you posted until we resolved on miscommunication issues. One by one my opinion follows:

freeminer wrote:

Born of a virgin (Isaiah 7:14; Matthew 1:21-23)

 

See Isaiah 7:14 in the JPS Hebrew version of the OT. "Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign: behold, the young woman shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel."

And - Isaiah is not saying anything about a virgin giving birth. he is talking about a young woman who will give birth. This refers to king Hezekiah which is obvious in context of the text in Isaiah 7:16-17 - "Yea, before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land whose two kings thou hast a horror of shall be forsaken.17 The LORD shall bring upon thee, and upon thy people, and upon thy father's house, days that have not come, from the day that Ephraim departed from Judah; even the king of Assyria." And more in chapter 8 detailing the Assyrian invasion of Israel and the removal of captives.

freeminer wrote:

A descendant of Abraham (Genesis 12:1-3; 22:18; Matthew 1:1; Galatians 3:16)

Genesis 12:1-3 - does not mention a messiah, only that he would make of Abram a great nation, no more.

Matt 1:1 is an opinion by an unknown writer.

Galatians 3:16 is an opinion and interpretation by Paul and unsubstantiated in fact. The text in Genesis makes no such claim.

 

freeminer wrote:

Of the tribe of Judah (Genesis 49:10; Luke 3:23, 33; Hebrews 7:14)

Genesis 49:10 JPS - "The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor the ruler's staff from between his feet, as long as men come to Shiloh; and unto him shall the obedience of the peoples be"

The sceptre did fall from Judah with the demise of it's kingdom in 587 BCE. King Zedekiah was the last of his line and no one ruling Judah/Israel/ Judea/ the Modern Nation of Israel has been shown to be of the tribe of Judah. Even if you can scratch out some proof Jesus was related to David somehow, there were 587 years in between where the sceptre was not in the hands of anyone of that tribe.

Luke 3:23 -38 - is Luke's claim of genealogy and is his interpretation. But the problem is Joseph was not the father of Jesus, supposedly the Holy Spirit was.

Hebrews 7:14 - is an opinion or interpretation by Paul in regards to Judah not being mentioned as priests and incidentally says Jesus was of that tribe.

freeminer wrote:

Of the house of David (2 Samuel 7:12-16; Matthew 1:1)

2 Sam 7:12-17 JPS - is the promise to David through Nathan the prophet from the god - "12 When thy days are fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, that shall proceed out of thy body, and I will establish his kingdom. 13 He shall build a house for My name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom for ever. 14 I will be to him for a father, and he shall be to Me for a son; if he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men; 15 but My mercy shall not depart from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away before thee. 16 And thy house and thy kingdom shall be made sure for ever before thee; thy throne shall be established for ever.' 17 According to all these words, and according to all this vision, so did Nathan speak unto David."

And again, in v16, the god promised that David's line would endure forever. So was Nebuchadnezzar, Nabonidus, Cyrus and all the Persian kings, Alexander, the generals who inherited Alexanders' empire, the Hasmonians, the Romans, Byzantines, the Islamic caliphs, the crusader kings, the Ottoman Turks, the British, the UN, and now the democratic nation of Israel all of David's lineage?

 

 

freeminer wrote:

Born in Bethlehem (Micah 5:2, Matthew 2:1; Luke 2:4-7)

Micah 5:1-2 JPS - "But thou, Beth-lehem Ephrathah, which art little to be among the thousands of Judah, out of thee shall one come forth unto Me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth are from of old, from ancient days. 2 Therefore will He give them up, until the time that she who travaileth hath brought forth; then the residue of his brethren shall return with the children of Israel."

However it was supposed to happen as in v4-5 "4 And this shall be peace: when the Assyrian shall come into our land, and when he shall tread in our palaces, then shall we raise against him seven shepherds, and eight princes among men. 5 And they shall waste the land of Assyria with the sword, and the land of Nimrod with the keen-edged sword; and he shall deliver us from the Assyrian, when he cometh into our land, and when he treadeth within our border."

By the alleged time of Jesus Assyria was no longer and he could not be the peace when the Assyrian came into the land as the nation of Assyria did not exist. And likewise, they that were named in v4 also could not deliver them from the Assyrian when they came into the land or cross the border as there was no Assyria to do so after Babylon conquered it.

Matt 2:1 - Claims a Jesus was born in Bethlehem, but so what. As Matt did not witness this act and Jesus had no country of Assyria to confront it is meaningless.

Luke 2:4-7 - Again, so what? Where was Assyria. And this census only occurred after Herod was dead and there is no proof people traveled to their ancestral home towns to be counted. When Rome directly began adminstration this census was performed in 6 CE. Josephus describes a tax revolt that ties in with this census.

freeminer wrote:

Taken to Egypt (Hosea 11:1; Matthew 2:14-15)

Hosea 11:1-11 - JPS "1 When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and out of Egypt I called My son. 2 The more they called them, the more they went from them; they sacrificed unto the Baalim, and offered to graven images. 3 And I, I taught Ephraim to walk, taking them by their arms; but they knew not that I healed them. 4 I drew them with cords of a man, with bands of love; and I was to them as they that take off the yoke on their jaws, and I fed them gently. 5 He shall not return into the land of Egypt, but the Assyrian shall be his king, because they refused to return. 6 And the sword shall fall upon his cities, and shall consume his bars, and devour them, because of their own counsels. 7 And My people are in suspense about returning to Me; and though they call them upwards, none at all will lift himself up. 8 How shall I give thee up, Ephraim? How shall I surrender thee, Israel? How shall I make thee as Admah? How shall I set thee as Zeboim? My heart is turned within Me, My compassions are kindled together. 9 I will not execute the fierceness of Mine anger, I will not return to destroy Ephraim; for I am God, and not man, the Holy One in the midst of thee; and I will not come in fury. 10 They shall walk after the LORD, who shall roar like a lion; for He shall roar, and the children shall come trembling from the west. 11 They shall come trembling as a bird out of Egypt, and as a dove out of the land of Assyria; and I will make them to dwell in their houses, saith the LORD"

In context, this does not indicate the  messiah will go to Egypt, only that the god brought his child (nation) Israel out of Egypt. And in verse 5, he shall not return to Egypt, which conflicts with your interpretation to boot.

Matt 2:14-15 - This is the alleged claim that Herod was killing babies in order to prevent a king from rising up out of a baby born in Bethlehem. History does not support this happened. Herod was evil and murderous, well established by Josephus however this murderous event is not included though his murders of family and others that might usurp his throne were included. If this was true, it would be documented elsewhere.

freeminer wrote:

Herod´s killing of the infants (Jeremiah 31:15; Matthew 2:16-18)

Jeremiah 31:14 - JPS - (v15 in NASB) - this refers to the children of Israel lost to captivity and death by Assyria and Babylon, not Herod the Idumean. In context read all of Jeremiah 31.

In v15-16 JPS - "15 Thus saith the LORD: Refrain thy voice from weeping, and thine eyes from tears; for thy work shall be rewarded, saith the LORD; and they shall come back from the land of the enemy. 16 And there is hope for thy future, saith the LORD; and thy children shall return to their own border."

Again, this does not refer to Herod.

Matt 2:16-18 - See above comments and read Josephus.

freeminer wrote:

Anointed by the Holy Spirit (Isaiah 11:2; Matthew 3:16-17)

In context, this does not support your interpretations but refers to the actions of the mashiarch or messiah.

1-The children of Israel return from Assyria and Egypt and elsewhere such as Pathros, Cush, Elam, Shinar, Hamath....

2- They would fly upon the Philistines, spoil Edom and Moab and the children of Ammon would obey. The Philistines were gone by the time of Jesus as a group of city states. Edom and Moab were crushed and obliterated. Ammon was as well.

Isaiah 11:1-12- JPS - "11,1 And there shall come forth a shoot out of the stock of Jesse, and a twig shall grow forth out of his roots. 11,2 And the spirit of the LORD shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the LORD. 11,3 And his delight shall be in the fear of the LORD; and he shall not judge after the sight of his eyes, neither decide after the hearing of his ears; 11,4 But with righteousness shall he judge the poor, and decide with equity for the meek of the land; and he shall smite the land with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips shall he slay the wicked. 11,5 And righteousness shall be the girdle of his loins, and faithfulness the girdle of his reins. 11,6 And the wolf shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them. 11,7 And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together; and the lion shall eat straw like the ox. 11,8 And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the basilisk's den. 11,9 They shall not hurt nor destroy in all My holy mountain; for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea. {S} 11,10 And it shall come to pass in that day, that the root of Jesse, that standeth for an ensign of the peoples, unto him shall the nations seek; and his resting-place shall be glorious. {P}

11,11 And it shall come to pass in that day, that the Lord will set His hand again the second time to recover the remnant of His people, that shall remain from Assyria, and from Egypt, and from Pathros, and from Cush, and from Elam, and from Shinar, and from Hamath, and from the islands of the sea. 11,12 And He will set up an ensign for the nations, and will assemble the dispersed of Israel, and gather together the scattered of Judah from the four corners of the earth. 11,13 The envy also of Ephraim shall depart, and they that harass Judah shall be cut off; Ephraim shall not envy Judah, and Judah shall not vex Ephraim. 11,14 And they shall fly down upon the shoulder of the Philistines on the west; together shall they spoil the children of the east; they shall put forth their hand upon Edom and Moab; and the children of Ammon shall obey them. 11,15 And the LORD will utterly destroy the tongue of the Egyptian sea; and with His scorching wind will He shake His hand over the River, and will smite it into seven streams, and cause men to march over dry-shod. 11,16 And there shall be a highway for the remnant of His people, that shall remain from Assyria, like as there was for Israel in the day that he came up out of the land of Egypt. "

Matt 3:16-17 is one of 3 claims of baptism of Jesus, the 4th version it is not clear he was in John. John claimed the holy spirit descended on Jesus but John doesn't indicate he was baptised. Regardless, this does not fit with Isaiah taken in context.

freeminer wrote:

Heralded by the messenger of the Lord (John the Baptist) (Isaiah 40:3-5; Malachi 3:1; Matthew 3:1-3)

Isaiah 40:3-5-JPS - 40,1 Comfort ye, comfort ye My people, saith your God. 40,2 Bid Jerusalem take heart, and proclaim unto her, that her time of service is accomplished, that her guilt is paid off; that she hath received of the LORD'S hand double for all her sins. {S} 40,3 Hark! one calleth: 'Clear ye in the wilderness the way of the LORD, make plain in the desert a highway for our God. 40,4 Every valley shall be lifted up, and every mountain and hill shall be made low; and the rugged shall be made level, and the rough places a plain; 40,5 And the glory of the LORD shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together; for the mouth of the LORD hath spoken it."

In context, this applied to the time period of Hezekiah not Jesus.

Malachi 3:1- JPS- "1 Behold, I send My messenger, and he shall clear the way before Me; and the Lord, whom ye seek, will suddenly come to His temple, and the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in, behold, he cometh, saith the LORD of hosts"

In context this discussed Elijah, see v23-24 - "23 Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and terrible day of the LORD. 24 And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers; lest I come and smite the land with utter destruction."

And don't forget all aspects of the law must be obeyed- v22 -  "Remember ye the law of Moses My servant, which I commanded unto him in Horeb for all Israel, even statutes and ordinances."

 

 

freeminer wrote:

Would perform miracles (Isaiah 35:5-6; Matthew 9:35)

In context this refers to the god, not the mashiach

Isaiah 35:4-6 - JPS - "35,4 Say to them that are of a fearful heart: 'Be strong, fear not'; behold, your God will come with vengeance, with the recompense of God He will come and save you. 35,5 Then the eyes of the blind shall be opened, and the ears of the deaf shall be unstopped. 35,6 Then shall the lame man leap as a hart, and the tongue of the dumb shall sing; for in the wilderness shall waters break out, and streams in the desert."

Matthew 9:35 - Claims Jesus went throughout the land teaching and healing. This only shows the writer believed this to be true and conflicts with Isaiah that says the god does this, and does not say it is the Messiah.

 

freeminer wrote:

Would preach good news (Isaiah 61:1; Luke 4:14-21)

In context this is not the messiah.

Isaiah 61:1-7-JPS - 61,1 The spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me; because the LORD hath anointed me to bring good tidings unto the humble; He hath sent me to bind up the broken-hearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the eyes to them that are bound; 61,2 To proclaim the year of the LORD'S good pleasure, and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all that mourn; 61,3 To appoint unto them that mourn in Zion, to give unto them a garland for ashes, the oil of joy for mourning, the mantle of praise for the spirit of heaviness; that they might be called terebinths of righteousness, the planting of the LORD, wherein He might glory. 61,4 And they shall build the old wastes, they shall raise up the former desolations, and they shall renew the waste cities, the desolations of many generations. 61,5 And strangers shall stand and feed your flocks, and aliens shall be your plowmen and your vinedressers. 61,6 But ye shall be named the priests of the LORD, men shall call you the ministers of our God; ye shall eat the wealth of the nations, and in their splendour shall ye revel. 61,7 For your shame which was double, and for that they rejoiced: 'Confusion is their portion'; therefore in their land they shall possess double, everlasting joy shall be unto them. 61,8 For I the LORD love justice, I hate robbery with iniquity; and I will give them their recompense in truth, and I will make an everlasting covenant with them. 61,9 And their seed shall be known among the nations, and their offspring among the peoples; all that see them shall acknowledge them, that they are the seed which the LORD hath blessed."

Luke 4:14-21 - Luke claims Jesus read these verses and said this had been fulfilled this day. Good luck with that. Luke did not have a personal acquaintance with Jesus and this is all hearsay.

 

freeminer wrote:

Would minister in Galilee (Isaiah 9:1; Matthew 4:12-16) Would cleanse the Temple (Malachi 3:1; Matthew 21:12-13)

Isaiah 9:1 - JPS - "The people that walked in darkness have seen a great light; they that dwelt in the land of the shadow of death, upon them hath the light shined."

I don't see how you get Galilee out of this. Clearly you used NIV or NASB which is Isaiah 8:23 in JPS -"8,23 For is there no gloom to her that was stedfast? Now the former hath lightly afflicted the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, but the latter hath dealt a more grievous blow by the way of the sea, beyond the Jordan, in the district of the nations."

In context  - I don't see where this says the messiah would minister in Galilee. 

As to cleansing the Temple:

Malachi 3:1 - JPS - "Behold, I send My messenger, and he shall clear the way before Me; and the Lord, whom ye seek, will suddenly come to His temple, and the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in, behold, he cometh, saith the LORD of hosts."

At best this refers to the messiah, but it only says the Lord will come to the Temple not that it will be cleansed. Clear the way does not mean "Cleanse the Temple". If you think it does show why.

Matthew 21:12-13 - NASB - This discussed Jesus in the Temple tossing out money changers etc. And does not coincide with Malachi.

 

freeminer wrote:

Would first present Himself as King 173,880 days from the decree to rebuild Jerusalem (Daniel 9:25; Matthew 21:4-11

Daniel 9:25-JPS- "Know therefore and discern, that from the going forth of the word to restore and to build Jerusalem unto one anointed, a prince, shall be seven weeks; and for threescore and two weeks, it shall be built again, with broad place and moat, but in troublous times."

Weeks mentioned do not add up to the 173,880 days without using creativity and conjecture deciding these weeks are years not weeks.

Matt 21:4-11 - NASB - This deals with Matt's version of Jesus entering Jerusalem and does not mention the Temple unless you buy into Jesus is the Temple, a quite new direction from what is mentioned.

freeminer wrote:

Would enter Jerusalem as a king on a donkey (Zechariah 9:9; Matthew 21:4-9)

Zechariah 9:9 -JPS - "Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion, shout, O daughter of Jerusalem; behold, thy king cometh unto thee, he is triumphant, and victorious, lowly, and riding upon an ass, even upon a colt the foal of an ass.'

The claim is the king will come upon an ass, but not a colt and an ass. Matt is divergent even from the other Gospels with this. Clearly, knowing the prophecy Jesus could have done this on purpose. This does not make him the mashiach.

 

 

freeminer wrote:

Would be rejected by Jews (Psalm 118:22; I Peter 2:7)

Psalm 118:22 - JPS - "The stone which the builders rejected is become the chief corner-stone."

In context, this is supposedly David who says in v21 "I will give thanks unto Thee, for Thou hast answered me, and art become my salvation." and in v23 "This is the LORD'S doing; it is marvelous in our eyes."

Now, if this meant the Jews rejected the mashiach, why did David consider it to be marvelous?

 

I will address the rest of your list of prophecies in my next post shortly.

 

 

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


freeminer
Theist
Posts: 304
Joined: 2010-07-04
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:In other word, the

 

Quote:

In other word, the prophecy can be interpreted to fit whatever conclusion is desired.

This issue is why the Bible "prophecies have a lot in common with the "prophecies" of Nostradamus.

the fact is that, while gramps' comment is true, any paradigm "can be interpreted to fit whatever conclusion is desired". Proponents of evolution demonstrate this constantly. The issue is whether a person is prepared to  maintain rationality or not. 

'It appeareth in nothing more, that atheism is rather in the lip than in the heart of man, than by this: that atheists will ever be talking of that their opinion, as if they fainted it within themselves and would be glad to be strengthened by the consent of others.' Francis Bacon.


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2038
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
freeminer wrote: Quote:In

freeminer wrote:

 

Quote:

In other word, the prophecy can be interpreted to fit whatever conclusion is desired.

This issue is why the Bible "prophecies have a lot in common with the "prophecies" of Nostradamus.

the fact is that, while gramps' comment is true, any paradigm "can be interpreted to fit whatever conclusion is desired". Proponents of evolution demonstrate this constantly. The issue is whether a person is prepared to  maintain rationality or not. 

Except for the part that evolution has evidence to back up the claims made, scientists provide the testing methods which anyone can test if they like to to prove them wrong, and it's not just mere assumption as per the bible that such said event matches up to said prophecy as so many make the claims for in the bible. So far the biblical prophecies tend to be so open to interpretation that you can look at almost any point in time in history and say that prophecy occurred at any given time as there is no real specific dates or actual event that have to occur for said prophecy to look fulfilled.

Your claim for evolution for example holds no merit as you see scientists and those that understand what evolution, also understand that the testing that goes into proving the claims in evolution are far more rock solid than any evidence that you have provided for any prophecies in the bible.


freeminer
Theist
Posts: 304
Joined: 2010-07-04
User is offlineOffline
    pauljohntheskeptic

 

 

 

 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

 

freeminer wrote:

“Jesus said to them, ‘This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.’” Luke 24:44 (NIV)

The Old Testament verses are the prophecy; the New Testament verses proclaim the fulfillment. Check them all out for yourself!

 

  • Born of a virgin (Isaiah 7:14; Matthew 1:21-23)
  • A descendant of Abraham (Genesis 12:1-3; 22:18; Matthew 1:1; Galatians 3:16)
  • Of the tribe of Judah (Genesis 49:10; Luke 3:23, 33; Hebrews 7:14)
  • Of the house of David (2 Samuel 7:12-16; Matthew 1:1)
  • Born in Bethlehem (Micah 5:2, Matthew 2:1; Luke 2:4-7)
  • Taken to Egypt (Hosea 11:1; Matthew 2:14-15)
  • Herod´s killing of the infants (Jeremiah 31:15; Matthew 2:16-18)
  • Anointed by the Holy Spirit (Isaiah 11:2; Matthew 3:16-17)
  • Heralded by the messenger of the Lord (John the Baptist) (Isaiah 40:3-5; Malachi 3:1; Matthew 3:1-3)
  • Would perform miracles (Isaiah 35:5-6; Matthew 9:35)
  • Would preach good news (Isaiah 61:1; Luke 4:14-21)
  • Would minister in Galilee (Isaiah 9:1; Matthew 4:12-16) Would cleanse the Temple (Malachi 3:1; Matthew 21:12-13)
  • Would first present Himself as King 173,880 days from the decree to rebuild Jerusalem (Daniel 9:25; Matthew 21:4-11)
  • Would enter Jerusalem as a king on a donkey (Zechariah 9:9; Matthew 21:4-9)
  • Would be rejected by Jews (Psalm 118:22; I Peter 2:7)
  • Die a humiliating death (Psalm 22; Isaiah 53) involving:
    1. rejection (Isaiah 53:3; John 1:10-11; 7:5,48)
    2. betrayal by a friend (Psalm 41:9; Luke 22:3-4; John 13:18)
    3. sold for 30 pieces of silver (Zechariah 11:12; Matthew 26:14-15)
    4. silence before His accusers (Isaiah 53:7; Matthew 27:12-14)
    5. being mocked (Psalm 22: 7-8; Matthew 27:31)
    6. beaten (Isaiah 52:14; Matthew 27:26)
    7. spit upon (Isaiah 50:6; Matthew 27:30)
    8. piercing His hands and feet (Psalm 22:16; Matthew 27:31)
    9. being crucified with thieves (Isaiah 53:12; Matthew 27:38)
    10. praying for His persecutors (Isaiah 53:12; Luke 23:34)
    11. piercing His side (Zechariah 12:10; John 19:34)
    12. given gall and vinegar to drink (Psalm 69:21, Matthew 27:34, Luke 23:36)
    13. no broken bones (Psalm 34:20; John 19:32-36)
    14. buried in a rich man’s tomb (Isaiah 53:9; Matthew 27:57-60)
    15. casting lots for His garments (Psalm 22:18; John 19:23-24)
  • Would rise from the dead!! (Psalm 16:10; Mark 16:6; Acts 2:31)
  • Ascend into Heaven (Psalm 68:18; Acts 1:9)
  • Would sit down at the right hand of God (Psalm 110:1; Hebrews 1:3)

 

Quote:

I posted a whole list of prophecies relating to Christ. It is possible, if one is prepared to become irrational, to reject any level of proof.......it is all down to how much a man wants truth.

Quote:
I take it the above is the"whole list of prophecies" you mention in post #350. I ignored it when you posted until we resolved on miscommunication issues. One by one my opinion follows:

that's fair enough. I guess neither of us wants to clutter the main discussion, but we could deal with these.

Quote:

Born of a virgin (Isaiah 7:14; Matthew 1:21-23)

 

See Isaiah 7:14 in the JPS Hebrew version of the OT. "Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign: behold, the young woman shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel."

And - Isaiah is not saying anything about a virgin giving birth. he is talking about a young woman who will give birth. This refers to king Hezekiah which is obvious in context of the text in Isaiah 7:16-17 - "Yea, before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land whose two kings thou hast a horror of shall be forsaken.17 The LORD shall bring upon thee, and upon thy people, and upon thy father's house, days that have not come, from the day that Ephraim departed from Judah; even the king of Assyria." And more in chapter 8 detailing the Assyrian invasion of Israel and the removal of captives.

This is because the Masoretic text uses, "young woman" while the Septuagint uses "virgin". In Genesis 24, the same Hebrew word, 'almah', refers to a woman about to be married. A young woman about to be married should be a virgin of course ......not to be was punishable by death under Mosaic Law! The young woman in question would have been a virgin at the time of the prophecy since she was a prophetess.......the only recorded marriage of a prophet to a prophetess. It is arguable that the passge is only prophetic in the typological sense but I would point out the following:

1] It is not addressed simply to Ahaz but to the whole "House of David".

2] A "young woman" giving birth to a child would hardly be a "sign" of anything under normal circumstances. In the case of Maher, significance was added by the context........and the prophecy was fulfilled in 732BC when Maher was about two.

3] Literally, the passage is reportedly true of Christ

4] The child  to whom the passage is believed to refer at that time was Maher-Shalel-Hash-Baz.

5] While virgin birth is not medically unknown [apparently!], the offspring is always a girl. If it had been true of Maher it obviously would have been a notable miracle. The implication appears to be that the Holy Spirit used the ambiguity between the Masoretic and LXX. to establish the typology.  

However Apologetics Press suggests that "young woman" should never be used: 

 

http://www.apologeticspress.org



 

The Septuagint renders ‘almâ in Isaiah 7:14 as parthenos, which means “a female of marriageable age with focus on virginity” (Danker, 2000, p. 777). Concerning the Septuagint translation of the Hebrew, Dohmen noted:

It is unlikely that the LXX
[Septuagint] tried to import the concept of a virgin birth, a familiar idea in many religious traditions, into Isa. 7:14. It is also possible that the unusual translation of the LXX is an attempt to accommodate the meaning of the text as altered by both the redaction and the reception of the original prophetic oracle (2001, 10:160, emp. added).

 

The translators of the Greek Septuagint rendered ‘almâ as parthenos, which generally means “virgin,” instead of neanis, which generally means “young woman” (Danker, p. 667). Jerome, in his translation of the Bible into Latin, rendered parthenos as virgo, which usually means “virgin” (Dohmen, 10:160). It is interesting that the translators of the Septuagint took the thought of the Hebrew passage and translated it into a Greek word for “virgin.” Since they worked about two hundred years before Christ was born, then the translators of the Septuagint could not have been trying to “fit” scripture to a Christian viewpoint, but instead were merely giving the correct translation for the passage. Of the passage in Isaiah 7:14, H.D.M. Spence and Joseph Exell made the following observations:

The rendering “virgin” has the support of the best modern Hebraists, as Lowth, Gesenius, Ewald, Delitzsch, Kay. It is observed with reason that unless ’almah is translated “virgin,” there is no announcement made worth of the grand prelude: “The Lord himself shall give you a sign—Behold!” The Hebrew, however, has not “a virgin” but “the virgin” (and so the Septuagint, h parthenos), which points to some special virgin, preeminent above all others (1962, 10:128, emp. in orig., italicized Greek words transliterated from Greek characters in orig.).

The point is well made that Isaiah was emphasizing a special birth, worthy of being considered a sign from God. With that in mind, the logical translation for ‘almâ is “virgin.”

Besides Isaiah 7:14, ‘almâ is used in Genesis 24:43, Exodus 2:8, Psalm 68:25, Proverbs 30:19, Song of Solomon 1:3 and 6:8. In an examination of the passages using the word ‘almâ, H.C. Leupold concluded that it “cannot be denied that such a one is to be classified as a virgin” (1988, 1:156). James Coffman drew an identical conclusion in his Commentary on Isaiah, citing Homer Hailey’s conclusion that the word ‘almâ , as used in the Old Testament, must be referring to a virgin (1990, p. 75). J. Gresham Machen, in his classic book, The Virgin Birth of Christ, indicated that “there is no place among the seven occurrences of ‘almah in the Old Testament where the word is clearly used of a woman who was not a virgin” (1980, p. 288).

In Genesis 24:43, the word ‘almâ refers to Rebekah, who we know from Genesis 24:16 was a virgin (which, incidentally, is designated by the term betûlâ). So here both betûlâ and ‘almâ are used to refer to a virgin girl. In Exodus 2:8, ‘almâ refers to Miriam, the elder sister of Moses. There is nothing in scripture to indicate that his sister was married at that time. In fact, it appears that she was not married and still living at home; therefore, ‘almâ likely is referring to her virgin condition. The Psalm 68:25 reference uses ‘almâ to designate young girls who were playing timbrels in what appears to be a religious parade or ceremony. It is highly unlikely that these girls were not virgins, since it would be uncommon for either a married woman or an unchaste girl to be involved in such a procession. Proverbs 30:19 is a little harder to decipher, but it appears that it is referring to intercourse between a man and a woman. [“There are three things which are too wonderful for me, yea, four which I know not: the way of an eagle in the air; the way of a serpent upon a rock; the way of a ship in the midst of the sea; and the way of a man with a maiden.”] However, it is impossible to ascertain from the verse whether or not the woman was a virgin. From the context of Song of Solomon 1:3 (“Thine oils have a goodly fragrance; thy name is as oil poured forth; therefore do the virgins love thee&rdquoEye-wink, ‘almâ can refer only to a virgin. Song of Solomon 6:8 (“There are threescore queens, and fourscore concubines, and virgins without number&rdquoEye-wink also is obviously referring to virgins, as opposed to the queens and concubines who have lost their virginity.

In Matthew 1:18-25, the apostle Matthew provided a divinely inspired commentary, citing Isaiah 7:14 as a prophecy fulfilled by the virgin birth of Jesus Christ. “Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, ‘Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us’ ” (Matthew 1:22-23, emp. added).

Therefore, the only conclusion that one can draw respecting the available evidence is that the Hebrew word ‘almâ, as used in Isaiah 7:14 and elsewhere in the Bible, is properly rendered “virgin.” The term does not always mean virgin in non-biblical writings, nor do analogous terms of other Semitic languages necessitate this translation. Nevertheless, in biblical usage, the only example that can be found is of a young woman whose virginity is intact. Leupold commented:

The translation “virgin,” therefore, deserves to be moved out of the margin [referring to the marginal translation of ‘almâ as “virgin” that the RSV

gives] and into the text; and the translation “young woman” merits no more than marginal status (1988, 1:157).

 

While correct on certain other translation points, the translators of the RSV made an erroneous judgment in the case of Isaiah 7:14.

Quote:
A descendant of Abraham (Genesis 12:1-3; 22:18; Matthew 1:1; Galatians 3:16)

Genesis 12:1-3 - does not mention a messiah, only that he would make of Abram a great nation, no more.

but that wasn't the claim.........which was that he would be a descendant of Abraham!

you would also have to consider the meaning of this:

   ">(F)And in you all the families of the earth will be blessed."

Quote:
Matt 1:1 is an opinion by an unknown writer.

not so, we know who Matthew was and the authorship of the book as being Matthew's was the unanimous opinion of the early church fathers. Matthew is referred to by his other name of 'Levi' by Mark and Luke. His "opinion" regarding Jesus' lineage was by no means just opinion since before AD 70 the records still existed and were available for Jews to check for themselves. Matthew's book contains elements which suggest an initial Jewish readership.

Quote:
Galatians 3:16 is an opinion and interpretation by Paul and unsubstantiated in fact. The text in Genesis makes no such claim.

 16Now the promises were spoken ">(AA)to Abraham and to his seed He does not say, "And to seeds," as referring to many, but rather to one, "">(AB)And to your seed," that is, Christ.

yes it is both his interpretation and his opinion. That is not the issue however.........which is, whether it is rational for us to share it. You see, Jews would agree with me that this:

 (F)And in you all the families of the earth will be blessed."

is prophetic of the Messiah.......we just disagree about his identity! But their own book predicts that, of this, they will be wrong!!!

Please expound on your rational alternative interpretation.

 

'It appeareth in nothing more, that atheism is rather in the lip than in the heart of man, than by this: that atheists will ever be talking of that their opinion, as if they fainted it within themselves and would be glad to be strengthened by the consent of others.' Francis Bacon.


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Freeminer, For biblical

Freeminer,

For biblical prophecy, essentially it comes down to who you trust.

The Hebrews who wrote it or the Greeks who translated it.

As for evolution being subject to interpretation, yes. As new data comes in and are examined, conclusions and theories get reevaluated.

Where is the new evidence for prophecy to get reevaluated/ I mean besides, "Oops, I got it wrong"?

Case in point: http://www.religioustolerance.org/end_wrl2.htm

That's just up to the 1920's - there are considerably more end of the world misses.

 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


freeminer
Theist
Posts: 304
Joined: 2010-07-04
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:Except for the part

 

Quote:
Except for the part that evolution has evidence to back up the claims made,

evolutionists and creationists have the same evidence. 

Quote:
scientists provide the testing methods which anyone can test if they like to to prove them wrong,

no they don't.....it's neither observable, repeatable nor testable. Adaptation is. 

Quote:
and it's not just mere assumption as per the bible that such said event matches up to said prophecy as so many make the claims for in the bible. So far the biblical prophecies tend to be so open to interpretation that you can look at almost any point in time in history and say that prophecy occurred at any given time as there is no real specific dates or actual event that have to occur for said prophecy to look fulfilled.

you clearly haven't followed this thread. Scripture gives dates - see Daniel 

Quote:
Your claim for evolution for example holds no merit as you see scientists and those that understand what evolution, also understand that the testing that goes into proving the claims in evolution are far more rock solid than any evidence that you have provided for any prophecies in the bible.

this is unsubstantiated assertion. In the spirit of this thread, back your claim historically.               

'It appeareth in nothing more, that atheism is rather in the lip than in the heart of man, than by this: that atheists will ever be talking of that their opinion, as if they fainted it within themselves and would be glad to be strengthened by the consent of others.' Francis Bacon.


freeminer
Theist
Posts: 304
Joined: 2010-07-04
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Freeminer,For biblical

Quote:

Freeminer,

For biblical prophecy, essentially it comes down to who you trust.

The Hebrews who wrote it or the Greeks who translated it.

As for evolution being subject to interpretation, yes. As new data comes in and are examined, conclusions and theories get reevaluated.

Where is the new evidence for prophecy to get reevaluated/ I mean besides, "Oops, I got it wrong"?

Case in point: http://www.religioustolerance.org/end_wrl2.htm

That's just up to the 1920's - there are considerably more end of the world misses.

 

this is correct........the speculations of evolutionists are always being amended whereas scripture just speaks the truth. The site you reference is a litany of vagueness.......... 'it was suggested that.........." plus cults etc. If you wish to know the facts, see how this discussion pans out. Then I'll deal with this issue if you like.

'It appeareth in nothing more, that atheism is rather in the lip than in the heart of man, than by this: that atheists will ever be talking of that their opinion, as if they fainted it within themselves and would be glad to be strengthened by the consent of others.' Francis Bacon.


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
freeminer

freeminer wrote:

 

Quote:
Except for the part that evolution has evidence to back up the claims made,

evolutionists and creationists have the same evidence. 

Quote:
scientists provide the testing methods which anyone can test if they like to to prove them wrong,

no they don't.....it's neither observable, repeatable nor testable. Adaptation is. 

Quote:
and it's not just mere assumption as per the bible that such said event matches up to said prophecy as so many make the claims for in the bible. So far the biblical prophecies tend to be so open to interpretation that you can look at almost any point in time in history and say that prophecy occurred at any given time as there is no real specific dates or actual event that have to occur for said prophecy to look fulfilled.

you clearly haven't followed this thread. Scripture gives dates - see Daniel 

Quote:
Your claim for evolution for example holds no merit as you see scientists and those that understand what evolution, also understand that the testing that goes into proving the claims in evolution are far more rock solid than any evidence that you have provided for any prophecies in the bible.

this is unsubstantiated assertion. In the spirit of this thread, back your claim historically.               

1.You mean it's a matter of the creationists not looking at it?

2. Adaptation is evolution. Creation ex nihilo is also not observable, testable or repeatable. You don't seem to have a problem with it.

3. Daniel gives a range of dates depending on whether you look at the days as days or years. You have your choice.

4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_evolution

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2038
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
freeminer

freeminer wrote:

evolutionists and creationists have the same evidence. 

really? creationist use god, scientist don't use god as evidence, creationist have yet to provide any actual evidence and/or scientific papers/testing to back up their claims, scientists and their study of evolution have, please provide evidence for creationist claims, that can actually be tested.

Quote:

no they don't.....it's neither observable, repeatable nor testable. Adaptation is. 

yes they do, it's all available from dna testing, genetics, observable testing, etc, etc, etc. which is why evolution can actually stand up in court, creation not so much, actually it failed in court.

Quote:

you clearly haven't followed this thread. Scripture gives dates - see Daniel 

seen the whole thread, I will kindly refer to various events of the end of the world that has occurred before in the past, in which the end of the world would come because it all fits the end of the world prediction in the bible. for example:

992ad Good Friday coincided with the Feast of the Annunciation; this had long been believed to be the event that would bring forth the Antichrist, and thus the end-times events foretold in the book of Revelation. Nothing happened.

Jan 1st, 1000 AD, Many Christians in Europe had predicted the end of the world on this date. As the date approached, Christian armies waged war against some of the Pagan countries in Northern Europe. The motivation was to convert them all to Christianity, by force if necessary, before Christ returned in the year 1000. Meanwhile, some Christians had given their possessions to the Church in anticipation of the end. Fortunately, the level of education was so low that many citizens were unaware of the year. They did not know enough to be afraid. Otherwise, the panic might have been far worse than it was. Unfortunately, when Jesus did not appear, the church did not return the gifts. Serious criticism of the Church followed. The Church reacted by exterminating some heretics, again nothing happened

1346 The black plague spread across Europe, killing one third of the population. This was seen as the prelude to an immediate end of the world. Unfortunately, the Christians had previously killed a many of the cats, fearing that they might be familiars of Witches. The fewer the cats, the more the rats. It was the rat fleas that spread the black plague. yet again no end of the world.

those are just some of the failed end of the world claims in history, there are alot more of these, all seemed to those at the time to be in-line with the prophecies, and just like history has proven it will never come. The world will end one day, but it will not be due to god, but due to a supernova, a few billion years from now. T

 

Quote:

this is unsubstantiated assertion. In the spirit of this thread, back your claim historically.               

yeah we have medicine and actual evidence and testing, court approvals (see the Dover case in which creationist got their asses handed to them in court because the lack of evidence to back up their claims and the massive amount of evidence for evolution) Biology, dna, genetics, and so much more evidence that you can deny it all you want, but in the end, you just end up looking ignorant. What is the evidence that you have again?


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
freeminer wrote:  freeminer

freeminer wrote:
 

freeminer wrote:
 

 

I posted a whole list of prophecies relating to Christ. It is possible, if one is prepared to become irrational, to reject any level of proof.......it is all down to how much a man wants truth.

 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
I take it the above is the"whole list of prophecies" you mention in post #350. I ignored it when you posted until we resolved on miscommunication issues. One by one my opinion follows:

that's fair enough. I guess neither of us wants to clutter the main discussion, but we could deal with these.

Quote:

Born of a virgin (Isaiah 7:14; Matthew 1:21-23)

  

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

See Isaiah 7:14 in the JPS Hebrew version of the OT. "Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign: behold, the young woman shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel."

And - Isaiah is not saying anything about a virgin giving birth. he is talking about a young woman who will give birth. This refers to king Hezekiah which is obvious in context of the text in Isaiah 7:16-17 - "Yea, before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land whose two kings thou hast a horror of shall be forsaken.17 The LORD shall bring upon thee, and upon thy people, and upon thy father's house, days that have not come, from the day that Ephraim departed from Judah; even the king of Assyria." And more in chapter 8 detailing the Assyrian invasion of Israel and the removal of captives.

freeminer wrote:
 

This is because the Masoretic text uses, "young woman" while the Septuagint uses "virgin". In Genesis 24, the same Hebrew word, 'almah', refers to a woman about to be married. A young woman about to be married should be a virgin of course ......not to be was punishable by death under Mosaic Law! The young woman in question would have been a virgin at the time of the prophecy since she was a prophetess.......the only recorded marriage of a prophet to a prophetess. It is arguable that the passge is only prophetic in the typological sense but I would point out the following:

1] It is not addressed simply to Ahaz but to the whole "House of David".

2] A "young woman" giving birth to a child would hardly be a "sign" of anything under normal circumstances. In the case of Maher, significance was added by the context........and the prophecy was fulfilled in 732BC when Maher was about two.

3] Literally, the passage is reportedly true of Christ

4] The child  to whom the passage is believed to refer at that time was Maher-Shalel-Hash-Baz.

5] While virgin birth is not medically unknown [apparently!], the offspring is always a girl. If it had been true of Maher it obviously would have been a notable miracle. The implication appears to be that the Holy Spirit used the ambiguity between the Masoretic and LXX. to establish the typology.  

However Apologetics Press suggests that "young woman" should never be used: 

 

http://www.apologeticspress.org



 

The Septuagint renders ‘almâ in Isaiah 7:14 as parthenos, which means “a female of marriageable age with focus on virginity” (Danker, 2000, p. 777). Concerning the Septuagint translation of the Hebrew, Dohmen noted:

It is unlikely that the LXX
[Septuagint] tried to import the concept of a virgin birth, a familiar idea in many religious traditions, into Isa. 7:14. It is also possible that the unusual translation of the LXX is an attempt to accommodate the meaning of the text as altered by both the redaction and the reception of the original prophetic oracle (2001, 10:160, emp. added).

 

The translators of the Greek Septuagint rendered ‘almâ as parthenos, which generally means “virgin,” instead of neanis, which generally means “young woman” (Danker, p. 667). Jerome, in his translation of the Bible into Latin, rendered parthenos as virgo, which usually means “virgin” (Dohmen, 10:160). It is interesting that the translators of the Septuagint took the thought of the Hebrew passage and translated it into a Greek word for “virgin.” Since they worked about two hundred years before Christ was born, then the translators of the Septuagint could not have been trying to “fit” scripture to a Christian viewpoint, but instead were merely giving the correct translation for the passage. Of the passage in Isaiah 7:14, H.D.M. Spence and Joseph Exell made the following observations:

The rendering “virgin” has the support of the best modern Hebraists, as Lowth, Gesenius, Ewald, Delitzsch, Kay. It is observed with reason that unless ’almah is translated “virgin,” there is no announcement made worth of the grand prelude: “The Lord himself shall give you a sign—Behold!” The Hebrew, however, has not “a virgin” but “the virgin” (and so the Septuagint, h parthenos), which points to some special virgin, preeminent above all others (1962, 10:128, emp. in orig., italicized Greek words transliterated from Greek characters in orig.).

The point is well made that Isaiah was emphasizing a special birth, worthy of being considered a sign from God. With that in mind, the logical translation for ‘almâ is “virgin.”

Besides Isaiah 7:14, ‘almâ is used in Genesis 24:43, Exodus 2:8, Psalm 68:25, Proverbs 30:19, Song of Solomon 1:3 and 6:8. In an examination of the passages using the word ‘almâ, H.C. Leupold concluded that it “cannot be denied that such a one is to be classified as a virgin” (1988, 1:156). James Coffman drew an identical conclusion in his Commentary on Isaiah, citing Homer Hailey’s conclusion that the word ‘almâ , as used in the Old Testament, must be referring to a virgin (1990, p. 75). J. Gresham Machen, in his classic book, The Virgin Birth of Christ, indicated that “there is no place among the seven occurrences of ‘almah in the Old Testament where the word is clearly used of a woman who was not a virgin” (1980, p. 288).

In Genesis 24:43, the word ‘almâ refers to Rebekah, who we know from Genesis 24:16 was a virgin (which, incidentally, is designated by the term betûlâ). So here both betûlâ and ‘almâ are used to refer to a virgin girl. In Exodus 2:8, ‘almâ refers to Miriam, the elder sister of Moses. There is nothing in scripture to indicate that his sister was married at that time. In fact, it appears that she was not married and still living at home; therefore, ‘almâ likely is referring to her virgin condition. The Psalm 68:25 reference uses ‘almâ to designate young girls who were playing timbrels in what appears to be a religious parade or ceremony. It is highly unlikely that these girls were not virgins, since it would be uncommon for either a married woman or an unchaste girl to be involved in such a procession. Proverbs 30:19 is a little harder to decipher, but it appears that it is referring to intercourse between a man and a woman. [“There are three things which are too wonderful for me, yea, four which I know not: the way of an eagle in the air; the way of a serpent upon a rock; the way of a ship in the midst of the sea; and the way of a man with a maiden.”] However, it is impossible to ascertain from the verse whether or not the woman was a virgin. From the context of Song of Solomon 1:3 (“Thine oils have a goodly fragrance; thy name is as oil poured forth; therefore do the virgins love thee&rdquoEye-wink, ‘almâ can refer only to a virgin. Song of Solomon 6:8 (“There are threescore queens, and fourscore concubines, and virgins without number&rdquoEye-wink also is obviously referring to virgins, as opposed to the queens and concubines who have lost their virginity.

In Matthew 1:18-25, the apostle Matthew provided a divinely inspired commentary, citing Isaiah 7:14 as a prophecy fulfilled by the virgin birth of Jesus Christ. “Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, ‘Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us’ ” (Matthew 1:22-23, emp. added).

Therefore, the only conclusion that one can draw respecting the available evidence is that the Hebrew word ‘almâ, as used in Isaiah 7:14 and elsewhere in the Bible, is properly rendered “virgin.” The term does not always mean virgin in non-biblical writings, nor do analogous terms of other Semitic languages necessitate this translation. Nevertheless, in biblical usage, the only example that can be found is of a young woman whose virginity is intact. Leupold commented:

The translation “virgin,” therefore, deserves to be moved out of the margin [referring to the marginal translation of ‘almâ as “virgin” that the RSV

gives] and into the text; and the translation “young woman” merits no more than marginal status (1988, 1:157).

 

While correct on certain other translation points, the translators of the RSV made an erroneous judgment in the case of Isaiah 7:14.

 

Allow me to disagree and to do so starting with church father Justin Martyr. In his apologetic, "Dialogue with a Jew" aka "Dialoque with Trypho" it is apparent that the Jews of his time disagreed with the Christian rendering of Isaiah 7:14. See chapter 43, the last sentance. Justin Martyr wrote this in the early part of the 2nd century. He died in about 166. Since he had to defend his interpretation against Trypho in this apologetic, it is apparent the Jewish view of this scripture was held to be "a young woman" at this point and not "a virgin". Trypho holds this verse to be a discussion of Hezekiah.

Also, another view and interpretation of this verse is held by Muslims. They consider it to be a prophecy of the birth of the messanger prophet Muhammend.

In regards to the issues of translation, I recommend the following links for a thorough analysis of the issues and disparity between Jewish and Christian interpretations. I will not clutter up this thread with a copy paste of the relative inforamtion, as I consider you can study it for yourself and understand the positions.

http://www.messiahtruth.com/is714a.html

and http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/virginprophecy.html

I hold with the position that this verse should be translated as "young woman" and occured in the time period following Ahaz and the NT is a morphed interpretation.

 

freeminer wrote:
 

Quote:
A descendant of Abraham (Genesis 12:1-3; 22:18; Matthew 1:1; Galatians 3:16)

Genesis 12:1-3 - does not mention a messiah, only that he would make of Abram a great nation, no more.

but that wasn't the claim.........which was that he would be a descendant of Abraham!

you would also have to consider the meaning of this:

   ">(F)And in you all the families of the earth will be blessed."

 

 

 

Silly claim then. If Jesus was a Jew, he'd be a descendent of Abram.

 

 

freeminer wrote:
 

 

Quote:
Matt 1:1 is an opinion by an unknown writer.

not so, we know who Matthew was and the authorship of the book as being Matthew's was the unanimous opinion of the early church fathers. Matthew is referred to by his other name of 'Levi' by Mark and Luke. His "opinion" regarding Jesus' lineage was by no means just opinion since before AD 70 the records still existed and were available for Jews to check for themselves. Matthew's book contains elements which suggest an initial Jewish readership.

Please supply the original written scripture by one Matthew aka Levi. Signed and copyrighted and/or with a Roman stamp attesting to its date of publication.

Also, please supply a notarized statement attested to by proper authorities that one Matthew the claimed writer of this scripture was in fact a disciple of one Jesus of Nazareth. Conjecture and hearsay statements by others is not acceptable.

**Edit** Corrected error**

Matthew severely errors in the description of Herod as a baby killer. Josephus does not mention this act nor does anyone else. Herod's murderous ways and bloodletting otherwise are well documented.

Other gospels do mention a person named Matthew/Levi, but that does not substantiate that person is the same as the writer of the book titled Matthew.

freeminer wrote:
 

Quote:
Galatians 3:16 is an opinion and interpretation by Paul and unsubstantiated in fact. The text in Genesis makes no such claim.

 16Now the promises were spoken ">(AA)to Abraham and to his seed He does not say, "And to seeds," as referring to many, but rather to one, "">(AB)And to your seed," that is, Christ.

yes it is both his interpretation and his opinion. That is not the issue however.........which is, whether it is rational for us to share it. You see, Jews would agree with me that this:

 (F)And in you all the families of the earth will be blessed."

is prophetic of the Messiah.......we just disagree about his identity! But their own book predicts that, of this, they will be wrong!!!

Please expound on your rational alternative interpretation.

 

It only attests that Abram would have a future generation deriving their ancestry from his seed (ie. loins, genetically related)

Seed in this usage is plural, as in I planted seed for corn.

 

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Response to Part 2 of Prophecies

freeminer wrote:



The Old Testament verses are the prophecy; the New Testament verses proclaim the fulfillment. Check them all out for yourself!

 

  • Die a humiliating death (Psalm 22; Isaiah 53) involving:
    1. rejection (Isaiah 53:3; John 1:10-11; 7:5,48)
    2. betrayal by a friend (Psalm 41:9; Luke 22:3-4; John 13:18)
    3. sold for 30 pieces of silver (Zechariah 11:12; Matthew 26:14-15)
    4. silence before His accusers (Isaiah 53:7; Matthew 27:12-14)
    5. being mocked (Psalm 22: 7-8; Matthew 27:31)
    6. beaten (Isaiah 52:14; Matthew 27:26)
    7. spit upon (Isaiah 50:6; Matthew 27:30)
    8. piercing His hands and feet (Psalm 22:16; Matthew 27:31)
    9. being crucified with thieves (Isaiah 53:12; Matthew 27:38)
    10. praying for His persecutors (Isaiah 53:12; Luke 23:34)
    11. piercing His side (Zechariah 12:10; John 19:34)
    12. given gall and vinegar to drink (Psalm 69:21, Matthew 27:34, Luke 23:36)
    13. no broken bones (Psalm 34:20; John 19:32-36)
    14. buried in a rich man’s tomb (Isaiah 53:9; Matthew 27:57-60)
    15. casting lots for His garments (Psalm 22:18; John 19:23-24)
  • Would rise from the dead!! (Psalm 16:10; Mark 16:6; Acts 2:31)
  • Ascend into Heaven (Psalm 68:18; Acts 1:9)
  • Would sit down at the right hand of God (Psalm 110:1; Hebrews 1:3)

 

freeminer wrote:

Die a humiliating death (Psalm 22; Isaiah 53) involving:

I would suppose you refer to these verses in Psalm 22:

Psalm 22 - JPS - v-2-3 "My God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken me, and art far from my help at the words of my cry?

3 O my God, I call by day, but Thou answerest not; and at night, and there is no surcease for me."

These verses are quite appropriate for David to say since he demonstrated his morals very vividly for all to see. He clearly did not accept responsibility for his evil.

If the god was as supposed, is it any wonder it appeared to abandon this war monger, killer, 2 faced friend?

Though, since Yahweh was a morphed Canaanite god created in man's imagination no answer would ever come anyway.

v17-21 " 17 For dogs have encompassed me; a company of evil-doers have inclosed me; like a lion, they are at my hands and my feet.

18 I may count all my bones; they look and gloat over me.
19 They part my garments among them, and for my vesture do they cast lots.
20 But Thou, O LORD, be not far off; O Thou my strength, hasten to help me.
21 Deliver my soul from the sword; mine only one from the power of the dog."

In context, David continues to whine how things don't go his way.

David was a very dangerous immoral person as portrayed in the OT and life shortening to his friends and allies.

Isaiah 53 - I refer you instead to Isaiah 49:3 - JPS - "3 And He said unto me: 'Thou art My servant, Israel, in whom I will be glorified."

I consider all of the suffering servant discussion to mean Israel, not Jesus as do the Jews. Therefore I consider an attempt to use Isaiah 52:13-53:12 to be misunderstood and puzzle piece fit to attempt to make this about Jesus.

 

freeminer wrote:

rejection (Isaiah 53:3; John 1:10-11; 7:5,48)

Isaiah 53:3 - See my comment RE: the suffering servant is Israel, not Jesus.

John 1:10-11 - NASB - This is an opinion of the writer asserted without proof. Isaiah does not support as mentioned above.

John 7:5 and 48 NASB - More opinions of the writer without evidance and no correlation to Isaiah.

freeminer wrote:

betrayal by a friend (Psalm 41:9; Luke 22:3-4; John 13:18)

Psalm 41:10 - JPS - is v10 not 9 - "10 Yea, mine own familiar friend, in whom I trusted, who did eat of my bread, {N}

hath lifted up his heel against me."

Perhaps David is talking about his own self centered treachery. If not, David's friends have understood what a dangerous back stabber he was and so turned against him.

Luke 22:3-4 NASB - This is the myth in regards to Satan entering Judas who then betrays Jesus. First off Satan has to be shown to actually exist, then shown to be not acting on the god's orders as the prosecutor angel. Then, you have to show Sci-Fi Luke just didn't make this up  for text filler, like much of the rest of his fantasy writing. He has many problems including his Jesus birth story. As the attributed writer to the book of Acts he is inconsistent in his writing and contradicts himself.

Regardless, nothing connects David's whining in regards to "his friends" who clearly had cause to turn on him and this story by Sci-Fi writer Luke.

John 13:18 - NASB - This is one of the multiple different versions of how Jesus identifies the betrayer at the Passover meal. None are the same.

Richard Nixon could make the same claim, that his friends betrayed him and it was foretold by David in Psalm 41. 

I see no connection to David's whining and the Jesus story.

freeminer wrote:

sold for 30 pieces of silver (Zechariah 11:12; Matthew 26:14-15)

Zechariah 11:12 - JPS - "12 And I said unto them: 'If ye think good, give me my hire; and if not, forbear.' So they weighed for my hire thirty pieces of silver. 13 And the LORD said unto me: 'Cast it into the treasury, the goodly price that I was prized at of them.' And I took the thirty pieces of silver, and cast them into the treasury, in the house of the LORD."

In Zechariah, the cash is deposited in the treasury. 

Also, Zechariah's visions have many questionable translation questions.

In v8 - is it the chief shepherd falling out with the 3 under shepherds or is it the chief shepherd falling out with the sheep of the flock?

Regardless, it's pretty tough to take this to have anything to do with Jesus and Judas. 

Matt 26:14-15 - NaSB - Matt's version of paying off Judas.

Poor connection and correlation.

freeminer wrote:

Silence before His accusers (Isaiah 53:7; Matthew 27:12-14)

Isaiah 53:7 - See previous comments - The suffering servant is Israel not Jesus.

Matt 27:12-14 - Matt's version of Jesus before Pilate one of the multiple choice stories, all with large differances. Story writer Matt can say what ever he wants, though it does not support a connection to the Suffering Servant Israel.

 

freeminer wrote:

being mocked (Psalm 22: 7-8; Matthew 27:31)

Psalm 22:7-8 - JPS - :7 But I am a worm, and no man; a reproach of men, and despised of the people.

8 All they that see me laugh me to scorn; they shoot out the lip, they shake the head:"

David's whining in regards to how the people saw him. Probably deserved.

Matt 27:31 - Again no connection to Jesus, David's people had cause to despise him and mock him. Did David have a purple rope too? Was it taken from him?

freeminer wrote:

beaten (Isaiah 52:14; Matthew 27:26)

Isaiah 52:14 - More in regard to Israel the Suffering servant and no connection to Jesus.

Matt 27:26 - So? Still no connection to Isaiah discussion RE: Israel the Suffering Servant.

freeminer wrote:

spit upon (Isaiah 50:6; Matthew 27:30)

Isaiah 50:6-7-JPS - "6 I gave my back to the smiters, and my cheeks to them that plucked off the hair; I hid not my face from shame and spitting. 7 For the Lord GOD will help me; therefore have I not been confounded; therefore have I set my face like a flint, and I know that I shall not be ashamed."

This is still about Israel not Jesus, but consider in v7 it is claimed the god would help. In the Jesus story he does not.

Matt 27:30 - No connection to Isaiah. Context does not match.

freeminer wrote:

piercing His hands and feet (Psalm 22:16; Matthew 27:31)

Psalm 22:17- JPS - NASB 16 is v17 JPS - "For dogs have encompassed me; a company of evil-doers have inclosed me; like a lion, they are at my hands and my feet."

Note - not piercing in JPS version.

NASB version translates as "For ">(AD)dogs have surrounded me; A band of evildoers has encompassed me;   They ">(AE)pierced my hands and my feet."

I don't get the NASB's differance here. it makes far less sense in context in the original than JPS.

Again, David was whining, so what. There is no connection to David's guilt ridden rant and Jesus.

Matt 27:31 - I don't see a hammer and nails in this verse, though it wouldn't connect to David's rant anyway.

freeminer wrote:

being crucified with thieves (Isaiah 53:12; Matthew 27:38)

Isaiah 53:12 -JPS - "Therefore will I divide him a portion among the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the mighty; because he bared his soul unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors; yet he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors."

 Back to Israel the Suffering Servant again. this is not Jesus. There are no thieves in Isaiah, only transgressors which could mean many things. It does not indicate he is executed at all, just he bared his soul unto death.

Matt 27:38 - Supposedly crucified between 2 thieves. Or were they malefactors as in Luke, which could mean rebels, murderers, insurrectionists etc. John only says 2 others were crucified with him and makes no mention of the reasons. This does not correlate to Isaiah.

freeminer wrote:

praying for His persecutors (Isaiah 53:12; Luke 23:34)

Isaiah 53:12 - JPS - Indicates the Israel, the Suffering Servant made intercession (prayed) for the trangressors, it does not say he prayed for his persecutors.

Luke 23:34 - indicates Jesus asked the god to forgive those who executed him. This is not the same as Isaiah where intercession is made for the transgressors.

freeminer wrote:

piercing His side (Zechariah 12:10; John 19:34)

Zechariah 12:10 - In context read all of chapter 12. I don't get a relationship to the story of a soldier in John jabbing a spear into Jesus with this. Were all nations gathered against Israel? No. Were they defeating all enemies? No. I don't see this as connecting to John at all.

John19:34 - Jesus is already dead, so a soldier jabs a spear in his side. So? This is not a fulfillment of anything from Zechariah.

freeminer wrote:

given gall and vinegar to drink (Psalm 69:21, Matthew 27:34, Luke 23:36)

Psalm 69:22 - JPS - v21 is v22 in JPS - "Yea, they put poison into my food; and in my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink."

I'd poison David too! I wouldn't give him anything to drink either.

Matt 27:34 and Luke 23:36 - It doesn't matter if Jesus was given a rum & coke, it doesn't correlate to David's whining.

 

freeminer wrote:

no broken bones (Psalm 34:20; John 19:32-36)

Psalm 34:21 - JPS - v21 in JPS is v20 - Many are the ills of the righteous, but the LORD delivereth him out of them all.

21 He keepeth all his bones; not one of them is broken."

 

So what, most people have all their bones.

John 19:32-36 - John's version of the execution has no legs snapped. This has no connection to Psalms and David's whining.

freeminer wrote:

buried in a rich man’s tomb (Isaiah 53:9; Matthew 27:57-60)

Isaiah 53:9 - JPS - "9 And they made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich his tomb; although he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth.' 10 Yet it pleased the LORD to crush him by disease; to see if his soul would offer itself in restitution, that he might see his seed, prolong his days, and that the purpose of the LORD might prosper by his hand."

Again, this is Israel the suffering servant. Though you could go a long way in correlation if you want to give me the names of the children Jesus fathered with his seed.

Matt 27:57-60 is one of the multiple choice versions of his burial, read all of them to see the differances. Mark 15:42-47, Luke 23:50-56, and John 19:38-42. All have differances.

 

freeminer wrote:

casting lots for His garments (Psalm 22:18; John 19:23-24)

Psalm 22:19-JPS - v19 in JPS - "They part my garments among them, and for my vesture do they cast lots."

They should have parted David from existance as well. In context, he continues to whine. this has no relationship to Jesus.

and in v30 - "All the fat ones of the earth shall eat and worship; all they that go down to the dust shall kneel before Him, {N}

even he that cannot keep his soul alive."

If you don't diet and are fat you will worship and knee before the god because you will eat. Or perhaps we can make this a new Christian covenant somehow. David, says the fat ones shall eat, therefore the god will fill their cupboards and refrigerators. It says so right here in Psalms.

John 19:23-24 - claims lots were cast for garments of Jesus. So?

freeminer wrote:

Would rise from the dead!! (Psalm 16:10; Mark 16:6; Acts 2:31)

Psalm 16:9-11 - JPS - "Therefore my heart is glad, and my glory rejoiceth; my flesh also dwelleth in safety;

10 For Thou wilt not abandon my soul to the nether-world; neither wilt Thou suffer Thy godly one to see the pit.
11 Thou makest me to know the path of life; {N}
in Thy presence is fulness of joy, in Thy right hand bliss for evermore."

Soul in this case means life force, meaning the god would not allow David to die at present. David does not say, you will bring my dead corpse back to life here.

Mark 16:6 and Acts 2:31 claim that a dead corpse came back to life and this is propheised by David the unrighteous one.

freeminer wrote:

Ascend into Heaven (Psalm 68:18; Acts 1:9)

Psalm 68:17-19 - JPS - "Why look ye askance, ye mountains of peaks, {N}

at the mountain which God hath desired for His abode? Yea, the LORD will dwell therein for ever.
18 The chariots of God are myriads, even thousands upon thousands; the Lord is among them, as in Sinai, in holiness.
19 Thou hast ascended on high, Thou hast led captivity captive; Thou hast received gifts among men, {N}
yea, among the rebellious also, that the LORD God might dwell there.

Zeus has nothing on Yahweh, he has his own mountain to live upon as well.

Ascending on high, in context to his mountain somehow becomes ascending into heaven.

Acts 1:9 - Claims are made by others, Mithras for example. Can I see the photos to examine them for decption and Photoshop? Yeah right, no cameras back then. So all we have are hearsay assertions then.

freeminer wrote:

Would sit down at the right hand of God (Psalm 110:1; Hebrews 1:3)

Psalm 110:1-JPS - "The LORD saith unto my lord: 'Sit thou at My right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool."

David said many things, though he demonstrated his honesty was appalling in his actions. I'd need others that could verify anything David claimed because he has no credibility.

Hebrews 1:3 - is another opinion by a writer, probably Paul or one of his followers.

 

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


freeminer
Theist
Posts: 304
Joined: 2010-07-04
User is offlineOffline
 Dear Paul, I propose to

 

Dear Paul, I propose to take all the points you raise seriously and will deal with them conscientiously as promptly as possible. We now have four ongoing conversations packed into this thread and at least two are off-topic. This seems unfair to gramps who initiated it. I guess it might just about sustain ours as it is at least directly related but I will avoid getting into 'last days' prophecy at least until gramps has had a crack at it because again, I think that would only be fair to him.

I must push on with some work today!.......but I really did want to deal with the ones below.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

freeminer wrote:

 

Of the tribe of Judah (Genesis 49:10; Luke 3:23, 33; Hebrews 7:14)

 

Genesis 49:10 JPS - "The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor the ruler's staff from between his feet, as long as men come to Shiloh; and unto him shall the obedience of the peoples be"

The sceptre did fall from Judah with the demise of it's kingdom in 587 BCE. King Zedekiah was the last of his line and no one ruling Judah/Israel/ Judea/ the Modern Nation of Israel has been shown to be of the tribe of Judah. Even if you can scratch out some proof Jesus was related to David somehow, there were 587 years in between where the sceptre was not in the hands of anyone of that tribe.

ok.......I think you and I would agree that the sceptre is the symbol of authority to rule and frequently extended to power over life and death.

Here is God's position regarding the throne of Israel.

12"">(T)When your days are complete and you ">(U)lie down with your fathers, ">(V)I will raise up your descendant after you, who will come forth from you, and I will establish his kingdom.

 13"">(W)He shall build a house for My name, and ">(X)I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever.

 14"">(Y)I will be a father to him and he will be a son to Me; ">(Z)when he commits iniquity, I will correct him with the rod of men and the strokes of the sons of men,

 15but My lovingkindness shall not depart from him, ">(AA)as I took it away from Saul, whom I removed from before you.

 16"">(AB)Your house and your kingdom shall endure before Me forever; your throne shall be established forever."'"

This parallels the prophecy in Genesis regarding the permanence of Judah's authority and you might just as well have raised objections on the same grounds.

It is clearly a firm promise, but then God puts a condition on the occupation of the throne:

1 Kings 2:4
so that the LORD may carry out His promise which He spoke concerning me, saying, ' If your sons are careful of their way, to walk before Me in truth with all their heart and with all their soul, you shall not lack a man on the throne of Israel.'
 

Jewish history clearly shows that the conditions for the fulfillment of this promise were not met.......successive kings were quickly deep into spiritual idolatry. So there is a distinction between the sceptre, the thone and the individual holding the power. This is true for example in the UK. The throne is, for better or worse, constitutionally established with the House of Windsor, [though there is a very good argument that it should be with the Plantagenets!] regardless of who occupies it and if there is an interegnum, everything else being equal, it returns to that House, as for example, in the Restoration.

So regarding Zedekiah; he was Nebuchadnezzer's 'place man':

Chronicles 36:10
[ Captivity in Babylon Begun ] At the turn of the year King Nebuchadnezzar sent and brought him to Babylon with the valuable articles of the house of the LORD, and he made his kinsman Zedekiah king over Judah and Jerusalem.
 

and God himself used Nebuchadnezzar to end his tenure. This is God's word concerning the throne and crown of the already divided kingdom:

25'And you, O slain, wicked one, the prince of Israel, whose ">(AB)day has come, in the time of the punishment of the end,'

 26thus says the Lord GOD, 'Remove the turban and take off the ">(AC)crown; this will no longer be the same ">(AD)Exalt that which is low and abase that which is high.

 27'">(AE)A ruin, a ruin, a ruin, I will make it This also will be no more until ">(AF)He comes whose right it is, and I will give it to Him.'

but, the line is preserved through Jeconiah:

  1. Jeremiah 27:20
    which Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon did not take when he carried into exile Jeconiah the son of Jehoiakim, king of Judah, from Jerusalem to Babylon, and all the nobles of Judah and Jerusalem.
    Jeremiah 27:19-21 (in Context) Jeremiah 27 (Whole Chapter)
  2. Jeremiah 28:4
    'I am also going to bring back to this place Jeconiah the son of Jehoiakim, king of Judah, and all the exiles of Judah who went to Babylon,' declares the LORD, 'for I will break the yoke of the king of Babylon.'"
    Jeremiah 28:3-5 (in Context) Jeremiah 28 (Whole Chapter)

This is the relevance of Matthew's genealogy. He confirms the above in the process of tracing the paternal line of descent from Abraham down to Joseph, thereby establishing Christ's legal right to the sceptre of Judah..........that's why his title was fixed to the cross!

So the sceptre, the legal right to the throne, did not pass from Judah.

Quote:
Luke 3:23 -38 - is Luke's claim of genealogy and is his interpretation.

no, again this is a matter of record, luke didn't construct a whole genealogy! 

Quote:
But the problem is Joseph was not the father of Jesus, supposedly the Holy Spirit was.

and this is the reason the blood line of descent from David to Jesus had to be established through the line of Mary.

Quote:
Hebrews 7:14 - is an opinion or interpretation by Paul in regards to Judah not being mentioned as priests and incidentally says Jesus was of that tribe.

 14For it is evident that our Lord was ">(R)descended from Judah, a tribe with reference to which Moses spoke nothing concerning priests.

 15And this is clearer still, if another priest arises according to the likeness of Melchizedek,

It is his opinion but as to interpretation, he is simply agreeing with the genealogical record as set out in Luke ie. that, as a descendant of David, Jesus is  of the tribe of Judah. This is correct. The priesthood held by Christ is literally of a different order. It is not part of the old Levite system but is, "after the order of Melchizedek". 

 

freeminer wrote:

 

Of the house of David (2 Samuel 7:12-16; Matthew 1:1)

 

Quote:
2 Sam 7:12-17 JPS - is the promise to David through Nathan the prophet from the god - "12 When thy days are fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, that shall proceed out of thy body, and I will establish his kingdom. 13 He shall build a house for My name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom for ever. 14 I will be to him for a father, and he shall be to Me for a son; if he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men; 15 but My mercy shall not depart from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away before thee. 16 And thy house and thy kingdom shall be made sure for ever before thee; thy throne shall be established for ever.' 17 According to all these words, and according to all this vision, so did Nathan speak unto David."

Quote:
And again, in v16, the god promised that David's line would endure forever. So was Nebuchadnezzar, Nabonidus, Cyrus and all the Persian kings, Alexander, the generals who inherited Alexanders' empire, the Hasmonians, the Romans, Byzantines, the Islamic caliphs, the crusader kings, the Ottoman Turks, the British, the UN, and now the democratic nation of Israel all of David's lineage?

no, none of these were of David's lineage and therefore not of his "house". Christ is however, and Daniel tells us that a God established a Kingdom in his time which is established "for ever". End time prophecy deals with the establishment of this kingdom physically, on Earth. 

 

'It appeareth in nothing more, that atheism is rather in the lip than in the heart of man, than by this: that atheists will ever be talking of that their opinion, as if they fainted it within themselves and would be glad to be strengthened by the consent of others.' Francis Bacon.


freeminer
Theist
Posts: 304
Joined: 2010-07-04
User is offlineOffline
latincanuck wrote:freeminer

latincanuck wrote:

freeminer wrote:

evolutionists and creationists have the same evidence. 

Quote:
really? creationist use god, scientist don't use god as evidence, creationist have yet to provide any actual evidence and/or scientific papers/testing to back up their claims, scientists and their study of evolution have, please provide evidence for creationist claims, that can actually be tested.

please provide evidence of one kind of organism turning into another..........cow into whale will do.

please provide evidence of any self- generating code.

Quote:

no they don't.....it's neither observable, repeatable nor testable. Adaptation is. 

Quote:
yes they do, it's all available from dna testing, genetics, observable testing, etc, etc, etc. which is why evolution can actually stand up in court, creation not so much, actually it failed in court.

the court case is a well known publicity stunt. Name evidence which evolutionists have and creationists don't.

 

Quote:

you clearly haven't followed this thread. Scripture gives dates - see Daniel 

Quote:
seen the whole thread, I will kindly refer to various events of the end of the world that has occurred before in the past, in which the end of the world would come because it all fits the end of the world prediction in the bible. for example:

992ad Good Friday coincided with the Feast of the Annunciation; this had long been believed to be the event that would bring forth the Antichrist, and thus the end-times events foretold in the book of Revelation. Nothing happened.

"long-believed" by whom? Catholics? I thought it happened  every year!

 

Quote:
Jan 1st, 1000 AD, Many Christians in Europe had predicted the end of the world on this date. As the date approached, Christian armies waged war against some of the Pagan countries in Northern Europe. The motivation was to convert them all to Christianity, by force if necessary, before Christ returned in the year 1000. Meanwhile, some Christians had given their possessions to the Church in anticipation of the end. Fortunately, the level of education was so low that many citizens were unaware of the year. They did not know enough to be afraid. Otherwise, the panic might have been far worse than it was. Unfortunately, when Jesus did not appear, the church did not return the gifts. Serious criticism of the Church followed. The Church reacted by exterminating some heretics, again nothing happened

save your breath - Catholic eschatology is a bizarre mess from beginning to end!

 

Quote:
1346 The black plague spread across Europe, killing one third of the population. This was seen as the prelude to an immediate end of the world. Unfortunately, the Christians had previously killed a many of the cats, fearing that they might be familiars of Witches. The fewer the cats, the more the rats. It was the rat fleas that spread the black plague. yet again no end of the world.
see above.

Quote:
those are just some of the failed end of the world claims in history, there are alot more of these, all seemed to those at the time to be in-line with the prophecies,

 they didn't then and they don't now.

Quote:
and just like history has proven it will never come.

please demonstrate how past events can prove that a future event won't happen.........this forum is for Rats!

Quote:
The world will end one day, but it will not be due to god, but due to a supernova, a few billion years from now.

unsubstantiated presupposition.

 

Quote:

this is unsubstantiated assertion. In the spirit of this thread, back your claim historically.               

Quote:
yeah we have medicine and actual evidence and testing, court approvals (see the Dover case in which creationist got their asses handed to them in court because the lack of evidence to back up their claims and the massive amount of evidence for evolution) Biology, dna, genetics, and so much more evidence that you can deny it all you want, but in the end, you just end up looking ignorant. What is the evidence that you have again?

the same as yours..........instead of making assertions about it .......state it!

in fairness to Gramps, why not see how this thread develops? I'm more than happy to discuss evolution in due course. Again in fairness, I won't discuss end time prophecy until gramps has had an opportunity to put his views.

 

'It appeareth in nothing more, that atheism is rather in the lip than in the heart of man, than by this: that atheists will ever be talking of that their opinion, as if they fainted it within themselves and would be glad to be strengthened by the consent of others.' Francis Bacon.


freeminer
Theist
Posts: 304
Joined: 2010-07-04
User is offlineOffline
Quote:1.You mean it's a

Quote:
1.You mean it's a matter of the creationists not looking at it?

no, we look at it too.

Quote:
2. Adaptation is evolution.

Adaptation is Biblical.......welcome to the Kingdom! 

Quote:
Creation ex nihilo is also not observable, testable or repeatable. You don't seem to have a problem with it.

that's because the one who diddit tells us about it..........and his word is testable.

Quote:
3. Daniel gives a range of dates depending on whether you look at the days as days or years. You have your choice.

I choose the most rational..........I suggest you do the same.

rapid adaptation supports the Biblical view. 

'It appeareth in nothing more, that atheism is rather in the lip than in the heart of man, than by this: that atheists will ever be talking of that their opinion, as if they fainted it within themselves and would be glad to be strengthened by the consent of others.' Francis Bacon.


freeminer
Theist
Posts: 304
Joined: 2010-07-04
User is offlineOffline
  Quote:1. Creation ex

 

 

Quote:
1. Creation ex nihilo is something I leave to you Christians> I believe that matter and/or energy were there at the beginning when space-time expanded. I do enjoy your crowing about your lack of knowledge.

which would you like to deny, the 2nd Law or that matter can neither be created nor destroyed?......so you assert that  "matter and/or energy were there at the beginning when space-time expanded." but have no anwser for their origin........that'll be magic then! Please feel free to continue your idiocy.

Quote:
2. Answerable to the laws of human society and my moral code, yes. Shame you can't say that - you use God to cover your ass.

you seem disturbingly preoccupied with my ass..........so you are answerable to yourself!......impressive! And what foundation does this"moral code" rest on pray?

Quote:
You need to make allowances for your God's inadequacies? I can see that,

since you can see them, please divulge them. 

Quote:
As for your god's needs, he craves worship, does he not?

your grasp of theology leaves something to be desired.

Quote:
3. God wrote all your books? Really? Didn't have the rocks to put his name on them, eh?

he lays claim but gives credits to the writers........he's like that! 

Quote:
What does it tel you about your God that people have "liberal" and "conservative" theologies for one absolute being?

it tells me nothing about God....it tells  me something about Hegel.

Quote:
4. Justice or mercy based solely on how deeply I kiss your God's ass? Where's the objective criteria?

you really do have an unhealthy bottom fixation!..........based on a free gift.........you simply ooze objectivity!

Quote:
5. Glad you liked the "fuckwit" name. Consider it an honor - not too many people are mindbogglingly stupid enough to get that out of me.

just at the moment, I'm hardly cowed by your staggering intellect!

 

Quote:
6. So, why do you believe in an ex nihilo creation in a cause/effect system?

is this return to a sensible question just an aberration? Because I believe our cause/effect system is a closed one. Particle physics appears to agree.  

Quote:
7. When it comes to getting what you want or your "personal convictions", which goes away first?

my covetousness.

Quote:
8. Hey, if you want to keep a badge you got dishonestly, ok. I guess we know where your personal convictions are.

 

if you pack in any more presumptiousness you'll burst. I appear to have been given it.........I care not either way.

'It appeareth in nothing more, that atheism is rather in the lip than in the heart of man, than by this: that atheists will ever be talking of that their opinion, as if they fainted it within themselves and would be glad to be strengthened by the consent of others.' Francis Bacon.


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
freeminer wrote:  Quote:1.

freeminer wrote:

 

 

Quote:
1. Creation ex nihilo is something I leave to you Christians> I believe that matter and/or energy were there at the beginning when space-time expanded. I do enjoy your crowing about your lack of knowledge.

which would you like to deny, the 2nd Law or that matter can neither be created nor destroyed?......so you assert that  "matter and/or energy were there at the beginning when space-time expanded." but have no anwser for their origin........that'll be magic then! Please feel free to continue your idiocy.

Quote:
2. Answerable to the laws of human society and my moral code, yes. Shame you can't say that - you use God to cover your ass.

you seem disturbingly preoccupied with my ass..........so you are answerable to yourself!......impressive! And what foundation does this"moral code" rest on pray?

Quote:
You need to make allowances for your God's inadequacies? I can see that,

since you can see them, please divulge them. 

Quote:
As for your god's needs, he craves worship, does he not?

your grasp of theology leaves something to be desired.

Quote:
3. God wrote all your books? Really? Didn't have the rocks to put his name on them, eh?

he lays claim but gives credits to the writers........he's like that! 

Quote:
What does it tel you about your God that people have "liberal" and "conservative" theologies for one absolute being?

it tells me nothing about God....it tells  me something about Hegel.

Quote:
4. Justice or mercy based solely on how deeply I kiss your God's ass? Where's the objective criteria?

you really do have an unhealthy bottom fixation!..........based on a free gift.........you simply ooze objectivity!

Quote:
5. Glad you liked the "fuckwit" name. Consider it an honor - not too many people are mindbogglingly stupid enough to get that out of me.

just at the moment, I'm hardly cowed by your staggering intellect!

 

Quote:
6. So, why do you believe in an ex nihilo creation in a cause/effect system?

is this return to a sensible question just an aberration? Because I believe our cause/effect system is a closed one. Particle physics appears to agree.  

Quote:
7. When it comes to getting what you want or your "personal convictions", which goes away first?

my covetousness.

Quote:
8. Hey, if you want to keep a badge you got dishonestly, ok. I guess we know where your personal convictions are.

 

if you pack in any more presumptiousness you'll burst. I appear to have been given it.........I care not either way.

Deny them no, remind you of them, no problem. The 2nd law of thermodynamics only applies in a closed system. The earth has this big ball of plasma a few million miles away pumping energy into it. I don't have an answer for the origin of matter and energy. I don't need one. You don't either but you settle for magic.

Preoccupation with asses? Not over much, I don't have one of my own but you are fond of using myth to protect yours.

You don't know your god's inadequacies? And here I thought you read your Bible.

Since "my grasp of theology" has Biblical support, I accept your concession of this point.

I also find it incredibly funny how you discuss my backside fixation because I don't want to kiss that part of your God. Meanwhile, you have enough suction on the keester of your God to bend light.

Based on a free gift that only requires unquestioning obedience and worship? I really don't see the "free" in that. then again, I've read the Bible. you probably need to do it.

So you believe in a closed system except for when your God magically opened it, did his thing and left no trace? You love that special pleading fallacy, don't you?

Covetousness is not the issue - not all desire is for something others have. What if your desire only cost you a lie? Your badge comes to mind. I'm not making any presumptions. Your ability to lie for what you want stands out loud and clear.

 

(Unless of course, you're playing a Poe - in which case, damn you're good)

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2038
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
freeminer wrote:please

freeminer wrote:

please provide evidence of one kind of organism turning into another..........cow into whale will do.

This statement right here shows your ignorance on evolution, it just smacks of stupidity, if you had any concept of evolution you would know that, however here is a link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_cetaceans and another http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/03/4/l_034_05.html that shows more than enough evidence that whales evolved from a land mammal, of course you have evidence that god created the whale as is? Please provide such said evidence.

Quote:

please provide evidence of any self- generating code.

code, or are you talking about RNA/DNA please provide the evidence that god made this happen.

 

Quote:

"long-believed" by whom? Catholics? I thought it happened  every year!

oh now catholics aren't christians? No true scotsman arguement? Is that what your going to use?

 

Quote:

save your breath - Catholic eschatology is a bizarre mess from beginning to end!

Yet again, evidence that end of the world prophecies have been foretold and stated that it will happen, and never pans out, but of course your just going to ignore that part of history right? Very common from people that believe like you do.

 

Quote:

please demonstrate how past events can prove that a future event won't happen.........this forum is for Rats!

Oh i can provide how past events can prove a future event, just none in regards to prophecies, I can give you geological events in the past that will prove that those geological events will occur in the future, however anything to do with god? Well it has a very sketchy record to date.

Quote:

unsubstantiated presupposition.

Nope, no god, therefore when the sun goes supernova the earth will end, unless of course another event happens, say a massive asteroid hits the earth. Other than that, no evidence that god will end the earth, no god, and failed prophecies = no end of times.

 

Quote:

the same as yours..........instead of making assertions about it .......state it!

in fairness to Gramps, why not see how this thread develops? I'm more than happy to discuss evolution in due course. Again in fairness, I won't discuss end time prophecy until gramps has had an opportunity to put his views.

 

gramps has no real insight to the prophecies and is no more assertive than those priests and believers at the end of the 19th century in spain that believed the world was ending because of all the evidence at hand that told them from the bible the end of times was coming. Much like all believers in prophecies they are merely forcing events to match these vague prophecies that have no real date, as stated before, those so called dates have changed so many times in the past because certain events matched the prophecies etc, etc, etc.

I however have stated the evidence we have for evolution, you have yet to provide a single bit of evidence that god did anything, or that god even exists. Same thing that creationists have.....and empty bag and lots of hot air.

 


freeminer
Theist
Posts: 304
Joined: 2010-07-04
User is offlineOffline
 Allow me to disagree and

 

Allow me to disagree and to do so starting with church father Justin Martyr. In his apologetic, "Dialogue with a Jew" aka "Dialoque with Trypho" it is apparent that the Jews of his time disagreed with the Christian rendering of Isaiah 7:14. See chapter 43, the last sentance. Justin Martyr wrote this in the early part of the 2nd century. He died in about 166. Since he had to defend his interpretation against Trypho in this apologetic, it is apparent the Jewish view of this scripture was held to be "a young woman" at this point and not "a virgin". Trypho holds this verse to be a discussion of Hezekiah.

Paul, this may well be the case, but it ain't the issue. Jews  will disagree with me today. An interpretation is not invalid because someone disagrees with it! My aim is not to satisfy, Jews, Muslims, Catholics, liberals or anyone else..........my aim is to arrive at a rational, coherent exegesis. The question is whether you are too!

Quote:
Also, another view and interpretation of this verse is held by Muslims. They consider it to be a prophecy of the birth of the messanger prophet Muhammend.

see above...........the total Islamic world view is entirely irrational and for all those centuries of supposed scholarship, can be shown to be so in about two minutes.........I will do so if you want me to. 

Quote:
In regards to the issues of translation, I recommend the following links for a thorough analysis of the issues and disparity between Jewish and Christian interpretations. I will not clutter up this thread with a copy paste of the relative inforamtion, as I consider you can study it for yourself and understand the positions.

http://www.messiahtruth.com/is714a.html

and http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/virginprophecy.html         

thanks.........yes there will be disparities, but the fact that the Jewish text itself tells them they are wrong, hardly gives them a great starting point!

Quote:
I hold with the position that this verse should be translated as "young woman" and occured in the time period following Ahaz and the NT is a morphed interpretation.
well, the Masoretic text itself  translated it "young woman" , no doubt she was, and no doubt , before marriage she was........but there is nothing anywhere to show that she was, at the point of conception. That's the reason why this passage is an example of typology. The Jews will deny it of course.........but they would wouldn't they?  

 

freeminer wrote:
 

 

Quote:
A descendant of Abraham (Genesis 12:1-3; 22:18; Matthew 1:1; Galatians 3:16)

Genesis 12:1-3 - does not mention a messiah, only that he would make of Abram a great nation, no more.

but that wasn't the claim.........which was that he would be a descendant of Abraham!

you would also have to consider the meaning of this:

   ">(F)And in you all the families of the earth will be blessed."

 

 

 

Silly claim then. If Jesus was a Jew, he'd be a descendent of Abram.

 

 

freeminer wrote:
 

 ok but why would the Jews expect the messiah to be a Jew if they hadn't been  told so?..........so the point wasn't exactly irrelevant.

Quote:
Matt 1:1 is an opinion by an unknown writer.

not so, we know who Matthew was and the authorship of the book as being Matthew's was the unanimous opinion of the early church fathers. Matthew is referred to by his other name of 'Levi' by Mark and Luke. His "opinion" regarding Jesus' lineage was by no means just opinion since before AD 70 the records still existed and were available for Jews to check for themselves. Matthew's book contains elements which suggest an initial Jewish readership.

Quote:
Please supply the original written scripture by one Matthew aka Levi. Signed and copyrighted and/or with a Roman stamp attesting to its date of publication.

Also, please supply a notarized statement attested to by proper authorities that one Matthew the claimed writer of this scripture was in fact a disciple of one Jesus of Nazareth. Conjecture and hearsay statements by others is not acceptable.

why would atheists expect a higher standard of proof of Biblical history than of any other sort?........this is what I call historical mysticism these days because the false dichotomy is entirely arbitrary. If people actually don't want to believe, that is their right, but oddly they choose to become irrational mystics about it and end up starting websites to try to wipe Christianity off the Earth! Their actual case, that people concocted wild stories and then stuck to them until Nero nailed them to trees and used them to light his garden........is just bizarre in the extreme.........it's a bit like the notion that I spend time talking to you so I'll get housepoints in Heaven!!!!.........well no, actually!

Apologetics Press.org

The Historicity of Jesus Christ by Wayne Jackson, M.A.

Printer version | Email this article

  

The NT is established by more than 5000 Greek manuscripts. All of the NT had been completed within about 60 yrs of Jesus' death.

Quote:
Matthew severely errors in the description of Herod as a baby killer. Josephus does not mention this act nor does anyone else. Herod's murderous ways and bloodletting otherwise are well documented.
but this is self-contradictory. If you have no other historical record of this specific genocide, how would you know that Matthew, "severely errs"!!!! The Bible contains all sorts of historical detail we don't find elsewhere........so what?

Quote:
Other gospels do mention a person named Matthew/Levi, but that does not substantiate that person is the same as the writer of the book titled Matthew.
But Bible scholars have concluded that all the evidence in that it is. However you might ask yourself what drives you to this sort of pedantry! Surely it's the content of Matthew which is significant? Is his testimony rational, coherent and consistent. Ultimately it comes down to whether the Bible stands up as God's communication to Man. 

freeminer wrote:
 

Quote:
Galatians 3:16 is an opinion and interpretation by Paul and unsubstantiated in fact. The text in Genesis makes no such claim.

 16Now the promises were spoken ">(AA)to Abraham and to his seed He does not say, "And to seeds," as referring to many, but rather to one, "">(AB)And to your seed," that is, Christ.

yes it is both his interpretation and his opinion. That is not the issue however.........which is, whether it is rational for us to share it. You see, Jews would agree with me that this:

 (F)And in you all the families of the earth will be blessed."

is prophetic of the Messiah.......we just disagree about his identity! But their own book predicts that, of this, they will be wrong!!!

Please expound on your rational alternative interpretation.

E.F. Harrison wrote: “Some religions, both ancient and modern, require no historical basis, for they depend upon ideas rather than events. Christianity is not one of these” (1968, p. 11). The religion of Jesus Christ stands or falls upon the events of history. Did Jesus of Nazareth ever live? Are the New Testament data regarding Him reliable? This is a crucial issue.

In the nineteenth century, German historian Bruno Baur alleged that Jesus was the mental invention of a few second-century Christians who were influenced by Græco-Roman philosophy. More recently, an atheist associated with the Freedom From Religion Foundation argued that “the New Testament Jesus is a myth” (Barker, 1992, p. 378).

More careful scholars, however, have been forced to acknowledge the historicity of the Lord. German historian, Adolf Harnack (1851-1930), declared that Jesus was so imposing that He was “far beyond the power of men to invent” and that those who treat Him as a myth are bereft of “the capacity to distinguish between fiction and the documentary evidence...” (as quoted by Harrison, 1968, p. 3). Joseph Klausner, the famous Jewish scholar of Hebrew University (who did not accept Christ as the Son of God) conceded that Jesus lived and exerted a powerful influence, both in the first century and subsequent thereto (1989, pp. 17-62). Even rabid skeptics have had to bow bloody heads to the blows of solid historical evidence. Entertainer Steve Allen authored several bitter diatribes against the Bible. Nevertheless, he confessed: “My own belief is that he [Christ] did indeed live in the time of Augustus Caesar...” (1990, p. 229).

Several lines of evidence converge to establish the historical reality of the founder of the Christian religion: (1) the New Testament documents; (2) ancient Jewish sources; (3) Roman writings; (4) early antagonists of Christianity; (5) the testimony of the patristic writers; (6) the art of the Roman catacombs; and (7) the impact of Christianity in history.

THE NEW TESTAMENT DOCUMENTS

Christ’s existence is established clearly by the primary documents of the New Testament. Skeptical writers would dismiss these, but to do so is irresponsible since more than 5,000 Greek manuscripts, in whole or part, establish the body of New Testament literature (Metzger, 1968, p. 36). All of the New Testament had been completed within sixty years or so of Jesus’ death. Of those twenty-seven books, no less than ten were penned by personal companions of the Lord. And Paul, an eyewitness of the resurrected Savior, wrote thirteen or fourteen of the remainder.

Liberal scholars have tried to relegate New Testament books to the second-century A.D. (or later), and have suggested that these documents are productions of unknown authors in order to repudiate them as primary sources of historical information. It is interesting to note, however, that even some radical theologians have conceded the strong evidence for the early composition of the New Testament. For instance, John A.T. Robinson, a liberal theologian from England, has acknowledged that all of the New Testament books were written in the first century. He also has admitted that the book of James was penned by a brother of the Lord within two decades of Jesus’ death, that Paul authored all the books that bear his name, and that John, the apostle, wrote the fourth Gospel (1976). The New Testament contains irrefutable evidence of the existence of Jesus.

JEWISH TESTIMONY

The earliest non-Christian testimony to the Lord’s existence is that of the Jewish historian, Flavius Josephus (A.D. 37-100). In Antiquities of the Jews, the historian twice referred to Jesus. In one passage he called Jesus “the Christ,” referred to His “marvelous deeds,” and alluded to His death and resurrection (18.3.3). Though some would dispute the genuineness of much of this reference, suggesting that it was embellished by an over-zealous Christian scribe, the passage, as it stands in all standard texts, can be defended (Jackson, 1991, pp. 29-30). In another place, Josephus commented on the trial of James, and identified Him as “the brother of Jesus, the so-called Christ” (20.9.1).

Additionally, the Jewish Babylonian Talmud took note of the Lord’s existence. Collected into a final form in the fifth century A.D., it is derived from earlier materials, some of which originated in the first century. Its testimony to Jesus’ existence is all the more valuable, as it is extremely hostile. It charges that Christ (Who is called Ben Pandera) was born out of wedlock after His mother had been seduced by a Roman soldier named Pandera or Panthera. Respected scholar Bruce Metzger has commented upon this appellation: “The defamatory account of his birth seems to reflect a knowledge of the Christian tradition that Jesus was the son of the virgin Mary, the Greek word for virgin, parthenos, being distorted into the name Pandera” (1965, p. 76). The Talmud also refers to Jesus’ miracles as “magic,” and records that He claimed to be God. It further mentions His execution on the eve of the Passover. Jewish testimony thus supports the New Testament position on the historical existence of Jesus.

ROMAN SOURCES

There are allusions to Christ in Roman times (see Bettenson, 1961, pp. 3-7).

  • Pliny, governor of Bithynia, wrote the Roman emperor Trajan (c. A.D. 112), asking for advice about how he should deal with Christians who made it a practice to meet on an appointed day to sing a hymn “to Christ as if to God” (Epist. X.96).
  • The Roman historian Tacitus, in his Annals (c. A.D. 115), referred to “Christus,” who “was executed at the hands of the procurator Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius” (XV.44).
  • Writing about A.D. 120, Suetonius, a popular Roman writer, declared that Claudius expelled the Jews from Rome because they “were continually making disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus” (Vita Claudii XXV.4). “Chrestus” is a corrupted form of Christos (Christ). Luke alluded to this situation in Acts 18:2.

ANTAGONISTS OF CHRISTIANITY

Another line of evidence establishing the historicity of Jesus is the fact that the earliest enemies of the Christian faith did not deny that Christ actually lived (see Hurst, 1897, 1:180-189).

  • Celsus, a pagan philosopher of the second century A.D., produced the oldest extant literary attack against Christianity. His True Discourse (c. A.D. 178) was a bitter assault upon Christ. Celsus argued that Jesus was born in low circumstances, being the illegitimate son of a soldier named Panthera (see above). As he grew , He announced Himself to be God, deceiving many. Celsus charged that Christ’s own people killed Him, and that His resurrection was a deception. But Celsus never questioned the historicity of Jesus.
  • Lucian of Samosata (c. A.D. 115-200) was called “the Voltaire of Grecian literature.” He wrote against Christianity more with patronizing contempt than volatile hostility. He said Christians worshipped the well-known “sophist” Who was crucified in Palestine because He introduced new mysteries. He never denied the existence of Jesus.
  • Porphyry of Tyre was born about A.D. 233, studied philosophy in Greece, and lived in Sicily where he wrote fifteen books against the Christian faith. In one of his books, “Life of Pythagoras,” he contended that magicians of the pagan world exhibited greater powers than Christ. His argument was an inadvertent concession of Jesus’ existence, and power.

THE PATRISTIC WRITERS

The Patristic writers authored significant works between the end of the first and eighth centuries A.D. These so-called “church fathers” (patres) produced volumes important to understanding the changes occurring in the Christian religion during the post-apostolic age, and testify profusely to the historical Christ (see Bettenson, 1956).

Polycarp (c. A.D. 69-155), for example, lived in the city of Smyrna in Asia Minor. He spoke passionately of Christ, and wrote against certain heretics of his day. Irenaeus (c. A.D. 130-200) said that Polycarp had personal association with the apostle John, and with others who “had seen the Lord” (Eusebius V.XX). He died a martyr, having served Jesus Christ for eighty-six years (suggesting that almost his entire life was dedicated to the Savior). The testimony of the “church fathers” certainly is more compelling than the trifling objections of biased critics who are twenty centuries removed from the facts.

THE ROMAN CATACOMBS

Beneath Rome there exists a maze of galleries that served, from the second to the fifth centuries A.D., as tombs (and secret places of worship during persecution) for early Christians. It has been estimated that there are some six hundred miles of these subterranean passages, representing 1,175,000 to 4,000,000 graves (Blaiklock, 1970, p. 159). The catacomb vaults are filled with art work, which testifies to the deep faith in Christ that was embraced by legions in the capital of the Roman empire. Common among these inscriptions was the figure of a fish, frequently containing the word ichthus (Greek for “fish”; Boyd, 1969, p. 203). The letters, however, were an acrostic for the declaration, Jesus Christ, God’s Son, Savior. Did millions, living in the shadows of the first century, die for a “myth”? Such a theory makes no sense.

THE IMPACT OF CHRISTIANITY

Finally, the impact of the Christian movement is powerful testimony to the reality of its Founder. It is inconceivable that a non-existent figure could have generated a societal force as world-shaking as Christianity. There is no logical way to explain how the Christian system started, and grew so rapidly, except for the fact that adherents knew of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection. Christianity itself is a monument to the vibrant presence of the God’s Son in history. The cause we espouse is not grounded in a wispy vapor of antiquity, but on unshakable historical facts.

REFERENCES

Allen, Steve (1990), Steve Allen on the Bible, Religion & Morality (Buffalo, NY: Prometheus).

Barker, Dan (1992), Losing Faith In Faith (Minneapolis, MN: Freedom From Religion Foundation).

Bettenson, Henry (1956), The Early Christian Fathers (London: Oxford University Press).

Bettenson, Henry (1961), Documents of the Christian Church (London: Oxford University Press).

Blaiklock, E.M. (1970), The Archaeology of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).

Boyd, Robert (1969), A Pictorial Guide to Biblical Archaeology (New York: Bonanza Books).

Harrison, E.F. (1968), A Short Life of Christ (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).

Hurst, John F. (1897), History of the Christian Church (New York: Eaton and Mains).

Jackson, Wayne (1991), “Josephus and the Bible [Part II],” Reason & Revelation, 11:29-32, August.

Klausner, Joseph (1989), Jesus of Nazareth (New York: Bloch).

Metzger, Bruce M. (19658), The Text of the New Testament (Oxford, England: Oxford University Press).

Metzger, Bruce M. (1965), The New Testament—Its Background, Growth, and Content (Nashville, TN: Abingdon).

Robinson, John A.T. (1976), Redating the New Testament (Philadelphia, PA: Westminster). See also: “The New Testament Dating Game,” Time, p. 95, March 21, 1977.

 

 


 

Quote:
It only attests that Abram would have a future generation deriving their ancestry from his seed (ie. loins, genetically related)

Seed in this usage is plural, as in I planted seed for corn.

 

Genesis 22:17-19 (New American Standard Bible)

 

 17indeed I will greatly bless you, and I will greatly ">(A)multiply your seed as the stars of the heavens and as ">(B)the sand which is on the seashore; and ">(C)your seed shall possess the gate of their enemies.

 18"">(D)In your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed, because you have ">(E)obeyed My voice."

 19">(F)So Abraham returned to his young men, and they arose and went together to Beersheba; and Abraham lived at Beersheba.

Actually the passage contains both. V17 clearly refers to the nation. V18 refers to Christ, as Paul says......unless, as I say, you have a rational alternative. I think it is generally fair to say that the world doesn't consider Israel, a blessing......and actually it doesn't believe in 'blessings'! 

'It appeareth in nothing more, that atheism is rather in the lip than in the heart of man, than by this: that atheists will ever be talking of that their opinion, as if they fainted it within themselves and would be glad to be strengthened by the consent of others.' Francis Bacon.


freeminer
Theist
Posts: 304
Joined: 2010-07-04
User is offlineOffline
Quote:&ldquo;Jesus said to

Quote:

“Jesus said to them, ‘This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.’” Luke 24:44 (NIV)

The Old Testament verses are the prophecy; the New Testament verses proclaim the fulfillment. Check them all out for yourself!

 

  • Born of a virgin (Isaiah 7:14; Matthew 1:21-23)
  • A descendant of Abraham (Genesis 12:1-3; 22:18; Matthew 1:1; Galatians 3:16)
  • Of the tribe of Judah (Genesis 49:10; Luke 3:23, 33; Hebrews 7:14)
  • Of the house of David (2 Samuel 7:12-16; Matthew 1:1)
  • Born in Bethlehem (Micah 5:2, Matthew 2:1; Luke 2:4-7)
  • Taken to Egypt (Hosea 11:1; Matthew 2:14-15)
  • Herod´s killing of the infants (Jeremiah 31:15; Matthew 2:16-18)
  • Anointed by the Holy Spirit (Isaiah 11:2; Matthew 3:16-17)
  • Heralded by the messenger of the Lord (John the Baptist) (Isaiah 40:3-5; Malachi 3:1; Matthew 3:1-3)
  • Would perform miracles (Isaiah 35:5-6; Matthew 9:35)
  • Would preach good news (Isaiah 61:1; Luke 4:14-21)
  • Would minister in Galilee (Isaiah 9:1; Matthew 4:12-16) Would cleanse the Temple (Malachi 3:1; Matthew 21:12-13)
  • Would first present Himself as King 173,880 days from the decree to rebuild Jerusalem (Daniel 9:25; Matthew 21:4-11)
  • Would enter Jerusalem as a king on a donkey (Zechariah 9:9; Matthew 21:4-9)
  • Would be rejected by Jews (Psalm 118:22; I Peter 2:7)
  • Die a humiliating death (Psalm 22; Isaiah 53) involving:
    1. rejection (Isaiah 53:3; John 1:10-11; 7:5,48)
    2. betrayal by a friend (Psalm 41:9; Luke 22:3-4; John 13:18)
    3. sold for 30 pieces of silver (Zechariah 11:12; Matthew 26:14-15)
    4. silence before His accusers (Isaiah 53:7; Matthew 27:12-14)
    5. being mocked (Psalm 22: 7-8; Matthew 27:31)
    6. beaten (Isaiah 52:14; Matthew 27:26)
    7. spit upon (Isaiah 50:6; Matthew 27:30)
    8. piercing His hands and feet (Psalm 22:16; Matthew 27:31)
    9. being crucified with thieves (Isaiah 53:12; Matthew 27:38)
    10. praying for His persecutors (Isaiah 53:12; Luke 23:34)
    11. piercing His side (Zechariah 12:10; John 19:34)
    12. given gall and vinegar to drink (Psalm 69:21, Matthew 27:34, Luke 23:36)
    13. no broken bones (Psalm 34:20; John 19:32-36)
    14. buried in a rich man’s tomb (Isaiah 53:9; Matthew 27:57-60)
    15. casting lots for His garments (Psalm 22:18; John 19:23-24)
  • Would rise from the dead!! (Psalm 16:10; Mark 16:6; Acts 2:31)
  • Ascend into Heaven (Psalm 68:18; Acts 1:9)
  • Would sit down at the right hand of God (Psalm 110:1; Hebrews 1:3)

 

Quote:

Born in Bethlehem (Micah 5:2, Matthew 2:1; Luke 2:4-7)

Micah 5:1-2 JPS - "But thou, Beth-lehem Ephrathah, which art little to be among the thousands of Judah, out of thee shall one come forth unto Me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth are from of old, from ancient days. 2 Therefore will He give them up, until the time that she who travaileth hath brought forth; then the residue of his brethren shall return with the children of Israel."

Quote:
However it was supposed to happen as in v4-5 "

and so it did...........but the passage does not stipulate immediacy. See below.

 

 

Quote:
4 And this shall be peace: when the Assyrian shall come into our land, and when he shall tread in our palaces, then shall we raise against him seven shepherds, and eight princes among men. 5 And they shall waste the land of Assyria with the sword, and the land of Nimrod with the keen-edged sword; and he shall deliver us from the Assyrian, when he cometh into our land, and when he treadeth within our border."

By the alleged time of Jesus Assyria was no longer and he could not be the peace when the Assyrian came into the land as the nation of Assyria did not exist. And likewise, they that were named in v4 also could not deliver them from the Assyrian when they came into the land or cross the border as there was no Assyria to do so after Babylon conquered it.

  5This One ">(K)will be our peace
         When the ">(L)Assyrian invades our land,
 

Peace is not merely  lack of war, peace is spiritual  and psychological........therefore in tribulation, we may be at peace.......if we know where to find it. Furthermore the passage had already said:

"2 Therefore will He give them up, until the time that she who travaileth hath brought forth;"

 

 

you seem to think that God is restricted to Man's labels . The passage speaks of the land ie the land of Nimrod. The Bible constantly refers to Assyria in the context of Nebuchanezzer's empire. Was Assyria home territory of the Neo- Babylonian Empire? - yes.

 

 

 2"But as for ">(B)you, Bethlehem Ephrathah,
         Too little to be among the clans of Judah,
         From ">(C)you One will go forth for Me to be ">(D)ruler in Israel
         His goings forth are ">(E)from long ago,
         From the days of eternity."
 

since no-one else has "days of eternity", the reference to Christ here is obvious........furthermore, Bethlehem was a one horse town!

Quote:
Matt 2:1 - Claims a Jesus was born in Bethlehem, but so what. As Matt did not witness this act and Jesus had no country of Assyria to confront it is meaningless.
so why the otherwise absurd., contextless mention of 'Bethlehem'? Re last point.......see above. It is meaningless except in an eschatological sense - which is the whole point! Thus the passage refers to the people as a remnant of Jacob scattered among the nations.

Quote:
Luke 2:4-7 - Again, so what? Where was Assyria.

see above - you will find it  on ancient maps - available on the web. 

Quote:
And this census only occurred after Herod was dead

please post your evidence.

Quote:
and there is no proof people traveled to their ancestral home towns to be counted.

the Bible deatails many events other sources don't. Is there rationality to support the notion of a lie? 

Quote:
When Rome directly began adminstration this census was performed in 6 CE. Josephus describes a tax revolt that ties in with this census.

    ¶ And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed.
2     (And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.)
3     And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city.
4     And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of DavidSmiling
5     To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child.

Quirinius was in office for two terms. A census is associated with each term; 6-4 BC and AD 6-9. This is the first. Herod the Great died 4BC.  

 

 

 

 

Quote:
Luke 2

Jesus' Birth in Bethlehem

 1Now in those days a decree went out from ">(A)Caesar Augustus, that a census be taken of ">(B)all [a]the inhabited earth.

 2This was the first census taken while [b]Quirinius was governor of ">(C)Syria.

 3And everyone was on his way to register for the census, each to his own city.

 4Joseph also went up from Galilee, from the city of Nazareth, to Judea, to the city of David which is called Bethlehem, because ">(D)he was of the house and family of David,

 5in order to register along with Mary, who was engaged to him, and was with child.

more later!

'It appeareth in nothing more, that atheism is rather in the lip than in the heart of man, than by this: that atheists will ever be talking of that their opinion, as if they fainted it within themselves and would be glad to be strengthened by the consent of others.' Francis Bacon.


freeminer
Theist
Posts: 304
Joined: 2010-07-04
User is offlineOffline
 3">(F)Know this first of

 3">(F)Know this first of all, that ">(G)in the last days ">(H)mockers will come with their mocking, ">(I)following after their own lusts,

 4and saying, "">(J)Where is the promise of His ">(K)coming? For ever since the fathers ">(L)fell asleep, all continues just as it was ">(M)from the beginning of creation."

 5For when they maintain this, it escapes their notice that ">(N)by the word of God the heavens existed long ago and the earth was ">(O)formed out of water and by water,

 6through which ">(P)the world at that time was ">(Q)destroyed, being flooded with water.

 7But by His word ">(R)the present heavens and earth are being reserved for ">(S)fire, kept for ">(T)the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.

 8But do not let this one fact escape your notice, ">(U)beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and ">(V)a thousand years like one day.

'It appeareth in nothing more, that atheism is rather in the lip than in the heart of man, than by this: that atheists will ever be talking of that their opinion, as if they fainted it within themselves and would be glad to be strengthened by the consent of others.' Francis Bacon.


gramster
Theist
Posts: 501
Joined: 2010-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Let me rephrase your question

jcgadfly wrote:

gramster wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

gramster wrote:

In bible prophecy time can be either literal or symbolic. It is important to know the difference. A day can be one literal day, or it can be symbolic for a year. One example is in Ezekiel 4:6 "I have assigned you a number of days corresponding to the number of years of their iniquity". We will also discover that some of the Daniel prophecies can not be referring to literal time and make any sense.

In the bible we also find a month to be equal to 30 days. The flood story gives us a good example of this. Genesis 7:11 the flood event starts on the 2nd month 17th day, and Genesis 8:4 it ends on the 7th month 17th day. This comes out to exactly 5 months. In Genesis 8:24 it says the "water prevailed on the earth 150 days". 150 days/5 months = 30 days.

In Daniel the term Time or Times is also used. The term time is translated to equal one year and times or (two times) refers to 2 years. The word used is "iddan" translated by Strongs Hebrew Lexicoon "a set time: technically a year: time".

As we get into time prophecies we will hold the position that the passage could be literal or symbolic. We will examine both possibilities and see which makes sense.

In other word, the prophecy can be interpreted to fit whatever conclusion is desired.

This issue is why the Bible "prophecies have a lot in common with the "prophecies" of Nostradamus.

Not at all. The prophecies in Daniel are very specific and detailed. A detailed examination will eliminate all but the correct interpretations. That is why it is important to establish sound basic principles.

I have not seen any Nostradamus prophecies that come anywhere close to paralleling those in the bible.

If they are "very specific and detailed" why do they have such varied interpretations (all of them claiming to be correct)?

Let me rephrase your question. If the prophecies in Daniel which are given largely in symbolic terms are very specific and detailed than why do people (who, if you get 4 into the same room can't seem to all agree on anything) have varied interpretations?

Why do scientists so often disagree when examining the same evidence? Why are some people Republicans, others Democrats, and others even Libertarians? That's the nature of mankind. It wouldn't be expected to be any different with Bible Prophecy.

That shouldn't keep us from closely examining the evidence. A close examination will show that there is only one set of powers that this prophecy can be referring to. No other powers on earth will stand up to close examination.

 


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
gramster wrote:jcgadfly

gramster wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

gramster wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

gramster wrote:

In bible prophecy time can be either literal or symbolic. It is important to know the difference. A day can be one literal day, or it can be symbolic for a year. One example is in Ezekiel 4:6 "I have assigned you a number of days corresponding to the number of years of their iniquity". We will also discover that some of the Daniel prophecies can not be referring to literal time and make any sense.

In the bible we also find a month to be equal to 30 days. The flood story gives us a good example of this. Genesis 7:11 the flood event starts on the 2nd month 17th day, and Genesis 8:4 it ends on the 7th month 17th day. This comes out to exactly 5 months. In Genesis 8:24 it says the "water prevailed on the earth 150 days". 150 days/5 months = 30 days.

In Daniel the term Time or Times is also used. The term time is translated to equal one year and times or (two times) refers to 2 years. The word used is "iddan" translated by Strongs Hebrew Lexicoon "a set time: technically a year: time".

As we get into time prophecies we will hold the position that the passage could be literal or symbolic. We will examine both possibilities and see which makes sense.

In other word, the prophecy can be interpreted to fit whatever conclusion is desired.

This issue is why the Bible "prophecies have a lot in common with the "prophecies" of Nostradamus.

Not at all. The prophecies in Daniel are very specific and detailed. A detailed examination will eliminate all but the correct interpretations. That is why it is important to establish sound basic principles.

I have not seen any Nostradamus prophecies that come anywhere close to paralleling those in the bible.

If they are "very specific and detailed" why do they have such varied interpretations (all of them claiming to be correct)?

Let me rephrase your question. If the prophecies in Daniel which are given largely in symbolic terms are very specific and detailed than why do people (who, if you get 4 into the same room can't seem to all agree on anything) have varied interpretations?

Why do scientists so often disagree when examining the same evidence? Why are some people Republicans, others Democrats, and others even Libertarians? That's the nature of mankind. It wouldn't be expected to be any different with Bible Prophecy.

That shouldn't keep us from closely examining the evidence. A close examination will show that there is only one set of powers that this prophecy can be referring to. No other powers on earth will stand up to close examination.

 

Simple, the prophecies didn't come from God. I thought this was going to be hard. See, you forgot to add that if these people believe in the Bible and that it was inspired by God and that these prophecies came from God -they should only have one interpretation. "Thus saith the Lord" shouldn't allow for wiggle room.

Why do scientists disagree when viewing evidence? Mostly because of a suspicion that the evidence is incomplete not that the evidence doesn't lead to the conclusion. Again, if it's evidence from a Gos, shouldn't it be incontrovertible? should really be playing the game of "When God said this he really didn't mean..."?

Not against closely examining evidence - I hope you bring some. I don't expect you'll do this but as a hint - "God said it. I believe it. That settles it." isn't evidence.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
freeminer wrote: Dear Paul,

freeminer wrote:

 

Dear Paul, I propose to take all the points you raise seriously and will deal with them conscientiously as promptly as possible. We now have four ongoing conversations packed into this thread and at least two are off-topic. This seems unfair to gramps who initiated it. I guess it might just about sustain ours as it is at least directly related but I will avoid getting into 'last days' prophecy at least until gramps has had a crack at it because again, I think that would only be fair to him.

I must push on with some work today!.......but I really did want to deal with the ones below.blishment of this kingdom physically, on Earth. 

 

I have actually had to spend time working the last few days and most of today I will too, But don't fret, I'll find time to respond to all of your comments. In the meantime, you still have many responses to address from your list of prophcies.

 

PJTS

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
 freeminer wrote:   Dear

 

freeminer wrote:

 

 

 

Dear Paul, I propose to take all the points you raise seriously and will deal with them conscientiously as promptly as possible. We now have four ongoing conversations packed into this thread and at least two are off-topic. This seems unfair to gramps who initiated it. I guess it might just about sustain ours as it is at least directly related but I will avoid getting into 'last days' prophecy at least until gramps has had a crack at it because again, I think that would only be fair to him.

 

I must push on with some work today!.......but I really did want to deal with the ones below.

 

  

 

freeminer wrote:

 

 

 

Of the tribe of Judah (Genesis 49:10; Luke 3:23, 33; Hebrews 7:14)

 

 

 

Genesis 49:10 JPS - "The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor the ruler's staff from between his feet, as long as men come to Shiloh; and unto him shall the obedience of the peoples be"

 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

 

The sceptre did fall from Judah with the demise of it's kingdom in 587 BCE. King Zedekiah was the last of his line and no one ruling Judah/Israel/ Judea/ the Modern Nation of Israel has been shown to be of the tribe of Judah. Even if you can scratch out some proof Jesus was related to David somehow, there were 587 years in between where the sceptre was not in the hands of anyone of that tribe.

 

freeminer wrote:

 

ok.......I think you and I would agree that the sceptre is the symbol of authority to rule and frequently extended to power over life and death.

 

The sceptre is the symbol of authority or ruler of the country or nation in question.

 

freeminer wrote:

 

Here is God's position regarding the throne of Israel.

 

12"(T)When your days are complete and you (U)lie down with your fathers, (V)I will raise up your descendant after you, who will come forth from you, and I will establish his kingdom.

 

 13"(W)He shall build a house for My name, and (X)I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever.

 

 14"(Y)I will be a father to him and he will be a son to Me; (Z)when he commits iniquity, I will correct him with the rod of men and the strokes of the sons of men,

 

 15but My lovingkindness shall not depart from him, (AA)as I took it away from Saul, whom I removed from before you.

 

 16"(AB)Your house and your kingdom shall endure before Me forever; your throne shall be established forever."'"

 

This parallels the prophecy in Genesis regarding the permanence of Judah's authority and you might just as well have raised objections on the same grounds.

 

It is clearly a firm promise, but then God puts a condition on the occupation of the throne:

 

1 Kings 2:4

so that the LORD may carry out His promise which He spoke concerning me, saying, ' If your sons are careful of their way, to walk before Me in truth with all their heart and with all their soul, you shall not lack a man on the throne of Israel.'

 

 

 

freeminer wrote:

 

 

Jewish history clearly shows that the conditions for the fulfillment of this promise were not met.......successive kings were quickly deep into spiritual idolatry. So there is a distinction between the sceptre, the throne and the individual holding the power. This is true for example in the UK. The throne is, for better or worse, constitutionally established with the House of Windsor, [though there is a very good argument that it should be with the Plantagenets!] regardless of who occupies it and if there is an interegnum, everything else being equal, it returns to that House, as for example, in the Restoration.

 

As I'm not English I could care less who collects a free living from the citizens of the UK.

 

You misunderstood the promise that was made without conditions to David after the God screwed King Saul over.

 

In II Sam 7:4-17 the prophet Nathan communicated to David what he claimed the god told him or what Nathan made up, whichever.

 

In this promise as you showed the god said. "12 When thy days are fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, that shall proceed out of thy body, and I will establish his kingdom. 13 He shall build a house for My name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom for ever. 14 I will be to him for a father, and he shall be to Me for a son; if he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men;"

 

This says the lineage from David on the throne will be forever. No way out for the god to squeeze out. Chastise does not mean take away. As shown next.

 

 

And Very Important the following:

 

"15 but My mercy shall not depart from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away before thee. 16 And thy house and thy kingdom shall be made sure for ever before thee; thy throne shall be established for ever.'

 

This does not allow the throne to depart at all regardless of how evil or idolatrous the king.

 

Then you tried to find a way to weenie the god out of this iron clad contract using 1 kings 2:1-5 - "1 Now the days of David drew nigh that he should die; and he charged Solomon his son, saying: 2 'I go the way of all the earth; be thou strong therefore, and show thyself a man; 3 and keep the charge of the LORD thy God, to walk in His ways, to keep His statutes, and His commandments, and His ordinances, and His testimonies, according to that which is written in the law of Moses, that thou mayest prosper in all that thou doest, and whithersoever thou turnest thyself; 4 that the LORD may establish His word which He spoke concerning me, saying: If thy children take heed to their way, to walk before Me in truth with all their heart and with all their soul, there shall not fail thee, said He, a man on the throne of Israel."

 

Now what we have here is David giving an opinion as to his interpretation of the iron clad contract made in 2 Sam. What isn't said here is what happens if the king is an evil twit. V5 goes on to discuss activities in regard to the kingdom and nothing is mentioned at all what happens if the king does not follow the god. So 2 Sam prevails as it is the original contract. In 2 Sam the god promised to stick it to the kings who didn't follow him by using the rod of men and the stripes of the children of men. One might interpret this to mean he'd allow other nations to win wars or battles against the evil god denying king. But what does not happen is the end of the iron clad contract for his actions as it is promised to endure forever. Shall not fail thee, does not mean lack a man on the throne, bad translation and not in pace with 2 Samuel's promise.

 

The god can't recant on forever on this promise or weasel out of it, except by standing by and allowing strife etc to occur. The next leader in the lineage would then get his chance to follow the way of the god or not. If not, he'd also get his ass kicked and on and on.

 

Except, going on down the road it ends when Judah as a Kingdom is no more. No matter how you try to squeak out of this, 587 years pass with no sceptre in the hands of a David descendent until the supposed birth of Yahshua bar Joseph. And he does not rule the nation, Rome does through Herod, a non-Jew.

 

 

 

freeminer wrote:

 

So regarding Zedekiah; he was Nebuchadnezzer's 'place man':

 

Chronicles 36:10

[ Captivity in Babylon Begun ] At the turn of the year King Nebuchadnezzar sent and brought him to Babylon with the valuable articles of the house of the LORD, and he made his kinsman Zedekiah king over Judah and Jerusalem.

 

 

and God himself used Nebuchadnezzar to end his tenure. This is God's word concerning the throne and crown of the already divided kingdom:

 

25'And you, O slain, wicked one, the prince of Israel, whose (AB)day has come, in the time of the punishment of the end,'

 

 26thus says the Lord GOD, 'Remove the turban and take off the (AC)crown; this will no longer be the same (AD)Exalt that which is low and abase that which is high.

 

 27'(AE)A ruin, a ruin, a ruin, I will make it This also will be no more until (AF)He comes whose right it is, and I will give it to Him.'

 

So the god broke the iron clad contract and therefore can't be trusted as he obviously lied in 2 Samuel. The promise was forever regardless, and so he is a deceiver.

 

freeminer wrote:

 

but, the line is preserved through Jeconiah:

 

Jeremiah 27:20

which Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon did not take when he carried into exile Jeconiah the son of Jehoiakim, king of Judah, from Jerusalem to Babylon, and all the nobles of Judah and Jerusalem.

Jeremiah 27:19-21 (in Context) Jeremiah 27 (Whole Chapter)

Jeremiah 28:4

'I am also going to bring back to this place Jeconiah the son of Jehoiakim, king of Judah, and all the exiles of Judah who went to Babylon,' declares the LORD, 'for I will break the yoke of the king of Babylon.'"

Jeremiah 28:3-5 (in Context) Jeremiah 28 (Whole Chapter)

What is said in Jeremiah is in regard to the "things" not people or the lineage as in NIV version:

 

"yes, this is what the LORD Almighty, the God of Israel, says about the things that are left in the house of the LORD and in the palace of the king of Judah and in Jerusalem: 22 'They will be taken to Babylon and there they will remain until the day I come for them,' declares the LORD. 'Then I will bring them back and restore them to this place.

 

freeminer wrote:

 

This is the relevance of Matthew's genealogy. He confirms the above in the process of tracing the paternal line of descent from Abraham down to Joseph, thereby establishing Christ's legal right to the sceptre of Judah..........that's why his title was fixed to the cross!

 

The title was alleged to have been fixed to the cross to mock him by the Romans.

 

And again, no king for 587 years and the god broke the iron clad contract and is therefore a deceiver, not to be trusted.

 

freeminer wrote:

 

So the sceptre, the legal right to the throne, did not pass from Judah.

 

No, the sceptre was eliminated permanently.

 

It passed from the lineage of David until the story claim of Yahshua bar Joseph is made in the NT. And still he didn't rule the nation, Rome did through their governors and puppets.

 

freeminer wrote:

 

Quote:
Luke 3:23 -38 - is Luke's claim of genealogy and is his interpretation.

 

no, again this is a matter of record, Luke didn't construct a whole genealogy!

 

Cool, you have copies of notarized birth certificates. Can I see them? If not, it is hearsay.

 

freeminer wrote:

 

Quote:
But the problem is Joseph was not the father of Jesus, supposedly the Holy Spirit was.

 

and this is the reason the blood line of descent from David to Jesus had to be established through the line of Mary.

 

A first, women suddenly matter now!!

 

 

 

freeminer wrote:

Quote:
Hebrews 7:14 - is an opinion or interpretation by Paul in regards to Judah not being mentioned as priests and incidentally says Jesus was of that tribe.

 

 14For it is evident that our Lord was (R)descended from Judah, a tribe with reference to which Moses spoke nothing concerning priests.

 

 15And this is clearer still, if another priest arises according to the likeness of Melchizedek,

 

It is his opinion but as to interpretation, he is simply agreeing with the genealogical record as set out in Luke ie. that, as a descendant of David, Jesus is  of the tribe of Judah. This is correct. The priesthood held by Christ is literally of a different order. It is not part of the old Levite system but is, "after the order of Melchizedek".

 

So was James, aka James the Just the brother of Jesus?

 

 

freeminer wrote:

 

Of the house of David (2 Samuel 7:12-16; Matthew 1:1)

 

Quote:
2 Sam 7:12-17 JPS - is the promise to David through Nathan the prophet from the god - "12 When thy days are fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, that shall proceed out of thy body, and I will establish his kingdom. 13 He shall build a house for My name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom for ever. 14 I will be to him for a father, and he shall be to Me for a son; if he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men; 15 but My mercy shall not depart from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away before thee. 16 And thy house and thy kingdom shall be made sure for ever before thee; thy throne shall be established for ever.' 17 According to all these words, and according to all this vision, so did Nathan speak unto David."

 

Quote:
And again, in v16, the god promised that David's line would endure forever. So was Nebuchadnezzar, Nabonidus, Cyrus and all the Persian kings, Alexander, the generals who inherited Alexanders' empire, the Hasmonians, the Romans, Byzantines, the Islamic caliphs, the crusader kings, the Ottoman Turks, the British, the UN, and now the democratic nation of Israel all of David's lineage?

 

no, none of these were of David's lineage and therefore not of his "house". Christ is however, and Daniel tells us that a God established a Kingdom in his time which is established "for ever". End time prophecy deals with the establishment of this kingdom physically, on Earth.  

 

 

Then therefore the sceptre was eliminated and the god broke the contract and is a deceiver who keeps not his word. No king or ruler from 587 BCE until the democracy (if that is what it is in the state of Israel) in 1947. And since a democracy (I use that loosely here) is in charge of Israel today there is no lineage still.

 

Jesus even if real, died and disappeared. Though, he said he was not one of us (humans) anyway, so therefore he couldn't be in the line of succession. Even if he was a half-god like Hercules, he was alien to the Earth and said so himself.

 

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


freeminer
Theist
Posts: 304
Joined: 2010-07-04
User is offlineOffline
Quote:The sceptre is the

Quote:
The sceptre is the symbol of authority or ruler of the country or nation in question.

 correct.

Quote:
It is clearly a firm promise, but then God puts a condition on the occupation of the throne:

1 Kings 2:4

so that the LORD may carry out His promise which He spoke concerning me, saying, ' If your sons are careful of their way, to walk before Me in truth with all their heart and with all their soul, you shall not lack a man on the throne of Israel.'

 

Quote:
As I'm not English I could care less who collects a free living from the citizens of the UK.

I didn't expect you to care..........it's irrelevant the point.

 

Quote:
You misunderstood the promise that was made without conditions to David after the God screwed King Saul over.

not so.............the above quote from 1 Kings 2 is a direct quote of David who clearly understood it to be conditional.

 

Quote:
In II Sam 7:4-17 the prophet Nathan communicated to David what he claimed the god told him or what Nathan made up, whichever.

well which is it? This is the promise to David.

  16"">(AB)Your house and your kingdom shall endure before Me forever; your throne shall be established forever."'"

and "the prince" of the Millennial reign in Ezekiel refers to him.

Quote:
In this promise as you showed the god said. "12 When thy days are fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, that shall proceed out of thy body, and I will establish his kingdom. 13 He shall build a house for My name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom for ever. 14 I will be to him for a father, and he shall be to Me for a son; if he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men;"

 

This says the lineage from David on the throne will be forever. No way out for the god to squeeze out. Chastise does not mean take away. As shown next.

that's correct , and "chastise" refers to Solomon.

 

Quote:
And Very Important the following:

 

"15 but My mercy shall not depart from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away before thee. 16 And thy house and thy kingdom shall be made sure for ever before thee; thy throne shall be established for ever.'

 

This does not allow the throne to depart at all regardless of how evil or idolatrous the king.

but the passage quoted from Kings makes it clear that possession of the throne was conditional. If scripture had not been consistent in this, you would be very quick to make the point! God said, "your throne shall  be established for ever"..... future.            

 

Quote:
Then you tried to find a way to weenie the god out of this iron clad contract using 1 kings 2:1-5 - "1 Now the days of David drew nigh that he should die; and he charged Solomon his son, saying: 2 'I go the way of all the earth; be thou strong therefore, and show thyself a man; 3 and keep the charge of the LORD thy God, to walk in His ways, to keep His statutes, and His commandments, and His ordinances, and His testimonies, according to that which is written in the law of Moses, that thou mayest prosper in all that thou doest, and whithersoever thou turnest thyself; 4 that the LORD may establish His word which He spoke concerning me, saying: If thy children take heed to their way, to walk before Me in truth with all their heart and with all their soul, there shall not fail thee, said He, a man on the throne of Israel."

 

Now what we have here is David giving an opinion as to his interpretation of the iron clad contract made in 2 Sam. What isn't said here is what happens if the king is an evil twit. V5 goes on to discuss activities in regard to the kingdom and nothing is mentioned at all what happens if the king does not follow the god. So 2 Sam prevails as it is the original contract. In 2 Sam the god promised to stick it to the kings who didn't follow him by using the rod of men and the stripes of the children of men. One might interpret this to mean he'd allow other nations to win wars or battles against the evil god denying king. But what does not happen is the end of the iron clad contract for his actions as it is promised to endure forever. Shall not fail thee, does not mean lack a man on the throne, bad translation and not in pace with 2 Samuel's promise.

firstly, again you choose to ignore the conditionality.........."If thy children take heed to their way, to walk before Me in truth with all their heart and with all their soul," In fact, you, yourself clearly recognise the meaning of "the rod of men". The "iron clad" part, that David's throne will be established forever, is the same as the statement in Daniel........that in the Roman period, God would establish a Kingdom without end.

 

Quote:
The god can't recant on forever on this promise or weasel out of it, except by standing by and allowing strife etc to occur. The next leader in the lineage would then get his chance to follow the way of the god or not. If not, he'd also get his ass kicked and on and on.

the Kingdom is established..... if it had related to the occupant of the throne, the words in Daniel would be at best superfluous. God says:

 Jeremiah 33:14
" 'The days are coming,' declares the LORD, 'when I will fulfill the gracious promise I made to the house of Israel and to the house of Judah.
Jeremiah 33:13-15 (in Context)

Quote:
Except, going on down the road it ends when Judah as a Kingdom is no more. No matter how you try to squeak out of this, 587 years pass with no sceptre in the hands of a David descendent until the supposed birth of Yahshua bar Joseph. And he does not rule the nation, Rome does through Herod, a non-Jew.
my "squeaking out" doesn't enter the question, either you want to understand prophecy or you don't. You rather overlook the fact that the Jews themselves chose to divide the Kingdom. Ezekiel prophecies their reunification.

 

Quote:
So the god broke the iron clad contract and therefore can't be trusted as he obviously lied in 2 Samuel. The promise was forever regardless, and so he is a deceiver.

See above. You are quite entitled to deceive yourself but you'll never be able to say you didn't have it explained.

 

Quote:
What is said in Jeremiah is in regard to the "things" not people or the lineage as in NIV version:

 and all the exiles of Judah who went to Babylon,and all the exiles of Judah who went to Babylon,

Quote:
"yes, this is what the LORD Almighty, the God of Israel, says about the things that are left in the house of the LORD and in the palace of the king of Judah and in Jerusalem: 22 'They will be taken to Babylon and there they will remain until the day I come for them,' declares the LORD. 'Then I will bring them back and restore them to this place.

Here is the complete passage"

Jeremiah 28:2-4 (New International Version)

2 "This is what the LORD Almighty, the God of Israel, says: 'I will break the yoke of the king of Babylon. 3 Within two years I will bring back to this place all the articles of the LORD's house that Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon removed from here and took to Babylon. 4 I will also bring back to this place Jehoiachin [a] son of Jehoiakim king of Judah and all the other exiles from Judah who went to Babylon,' declares the LORD, 'for I will break the yoke of the king of Babylon"

Quote:
The title was alleged to have been fixed to the cross to mock him by the Romans.

that's right...... as I said, God uses the evil of others!

 

Quote:
And again, no king for 587 years and the god broke the iron clad contract and is therefore a deceiver, not to be trusted.

see above....... the choice is yours, my job is just to ensure you know.

 

Quote:
So the sceptre, the legal right to the throne, did not pass from Judah.

 

Quote:
No, the sceptre was eliminated permanently.

your choice.

 

Quote:
It passed from the lineage of David until the story claim of Yahshua bar Joseph is made in the NT. And still he didn't rule the nation, Rome did through their governors and puppets.

see above.

 

Quote:
Cool, you have copies of notarized birth certificates. Can I see them? If not, it is hearsay.

see my note on historical mysticism.

Quote:
But the problem is Joseph was not the father of Jesus, supposedly the Holy Spirit was.

 

Quote:
and this is the reason the blood line of descent from David to Jesus had to be established through the line of Mary.

 

Quote:
A first, women suddenly matter now!!

scripture is packed with women who matter - including  prostitutes who matter, Esther, Deborah.......judge over Israel, Rahab, Ruth, Sarai, Hannah..........the list is endless. 

Quote:
So was James, aka James the Just the brother of Jesus?

yes, specifically, a half-brother.

 

 

Quote:
Of the house of David (2 Samuel 7:12-16; Matthew 1:1)

 

2 Sam 7:12-17 JPS - is the promise to David through Nathan the prophet from the god - "12 When thy days are fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, that shall proceed out of thy body, and I will establish his kingdom. 13 He shall build a house for My name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom for ever. 14 I will be to him for a father, and he shall be to Me for a son; if he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men; 15 but My mercy shall not depart from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away before thee. 16 And thy house and thy kingdom shall be made sure for ever before thee; thy throne shall be established for ever.' 17 According to all these words, and according to all this vision, so did Nathan speak unto David."

 

Quote:
And again, in v16, the god promised that David's line would endure forever. So was Nebuchadnezzar, Nabonidus, Cyrus and all the Persian kings, Alexander, the generals who inherited Alexanders' empire, the Hasmonians, the Romans, Byzantines, the Islamic caliphs, the crusader kings, the Ottoman Turks, the British, the UN, and now the democratic nation of Israel all of David's lineage?

 

Quote:
no, none of these were of David's lineage and therefore not of his "house". Christ is however, and Daniel tells us that a God established a Kingdom in his time which is established "for ever". End time prophecy deals with the establishment of this kingdom physically, on Earth.  

 

Quote:
Then therefore the sceptre was eliminated and the god broke the contract and is a deceiver who keeps not his word. No king or ruler from 587 BCE until the democracy (if that is what it is in the state of Israel) in 1947. And since a democracy (I use that loosely here) is in charge of Israel today there is no lineage still.

well that clearly depends on whether you believe in the resurrection or not......which, surprise, surprise, you don't! If you believe that all these prophecies are the product of human fabrication and you don't find the questions of coherence and motivation puzzling........so be it.  

 

Quote:
Jesus even if real, died and disappeared. Though, he said he was not one of us (humans) anyway, so therefore he couldn't be in the line of succession. Even if he was a half-god like Hercules, he was alien to the Earth and said so himself.

See above. The Biblical claim is that Jesus is fully Man and fully God. Thousands claim to know him. Current events are consistent with his prophecies. He didn't say he was alien! he said his Kingdom was not of this world........which during the Age of Grace.....it isn't.

 

'It appeareth in nothing more, that atheism is rather in the lip than in the heart of man, than by this: that atheists will ever be talking of that their opinion, as if they fainted it within themselves and would be glad to be strengthened by the consent of others.' Francis Bacon.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
freeminer wrote:   

freeminer wrote:

 

   Current events are consistent with his prophecies. He didn't say he was alien! he said his Kingdom was not of this world........which during the Age of Grace.....it isn't.

 

   If the scenario you're alluding to involves a literal "second coming" of Jesus to Earth in a tangible fashion, then that would at least constitute God throwing skeptics a bone, so to speak.   It would be totally irrational to deny the existence of the Christian God when he's basically standing right in front of you.

  Until then....meh.

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
It's simpler than that,

It's simpler than that, freeminer. You have to choose which promise of God is the one God really meant to keep

From the evidence, he kept neither..

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


gramster
Theist
Posts: 501
Joined: 2010-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Once again "faulty logic"

jcgadfly wrote:

gramster wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

gramster wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

gramster wrote:

In bible prophecy time can be either literal or symbolic. It is important to know the difference. A day can be one literal day, or it can be symbolic for a year. One example is in Ezekiel 4:6 "I have assigned you a number of days corresponding to the number of years of their iniquity". We will also discover that some of the Daniel prophecies can not be referring to literal time and make any sense.

In the bible we also find a month to be equal to 30 days. The flood story gives us a good example of this. Genesis 7:11 the flood event starts on the 2nd month 17th day, and Genesis 8:4 it ends on the 7th month 17th day. This comes out to exactly 5 months. In Genesis 8:24 it says the "water prevailed on the earth 150 days". 150 days/5 months = 30 days.

In Daniel the term Time or Times is also used. The term time is translated to equal one year and times or (two times) refers to 2 years. The word used is "iddan" translated by Strongs Hebrew Lexicoon "a set time: technically a year: time".

As we get into time prophecies we will hold the position that the passage could be literal or symbolic. We will examine both possibilities and see which makes sense.

In other word, the prophecy can be interpreted to fit whatever conclusion is desired.

This issue is why the Bible "prophecies have a lot in common with the "prophecies" of Nostradamus.

Not at all. The prophecies in Daniel are very specific and detailed. A detailed examination will eliminate all but the correct interpretations. That is why it is important to establish sound basic principles.

I have not seen any Nostradamus prophecies that come anywhere close to paralleling those in the bible.

If they are "very specific and detailed" why do they have such varied interpretations (all of them claiming to be correct)?

Let me rephrase your question. If the prophecies in Daniel which are given largely in symbolic terms are very specific and detailed than why do people (who, if you get 4 into the same room can't seem to all agree on anything) have varied interpretations?

Why do scientists so often disagree when examining the same evidence? Why are some people Republicans, others Democrats, and others even Libertarians? That's the nature of mankind. It wouldn't be expected to be any different with Bible Prophecy.

That shouldn't keep us from closely examining the evidence. A close examination will show that there is only one set of powers that this prophecy can be referring to. No other powers on earth will stand up to close examination.

 

Simple, the prophecies didn't come from God. I thought this was going to be hard. See, you forgot to add that if these people believe in the Bible and that it was inspired by God and that these prophecies came from God -they should only have one interpretation. "Thus saith the Lord" shouldn't allow for wiggle room.

Why do scientists disagree when viewing evidence? Mostly because of a suspicion that the evidence is incomplete not that the evidence doesn't lead to the conclusion. Again, if it's evidence from a Gos, shouldn't it be incontrovertible? should really be playing the game of "When God said this he really didn't mean..."?

Not against closely examining evidence - I hope you bring some. I don't expect you'll do this but as a hint - "God said it. I believe it. That settles it." isn't evidence.

Your logic is faulty. You once again fail to use the much touted "critical analysis" made so much a while back.

It doesn't take much gray matter to figure this one out. If God had written these prophecies in a manner in which they would be easily understood by all, it would probably have caused all kinds of problems He would have wanted to avoid.

If a would be ruler had lofty ambitions that conflicted with these prophecies he would likely become very hostile to the writings and the people that had it. Much persecution would likely result and destruction of the writings as well.

If an existing ruler that wanted his kingdom to "last forever" read the prophecies, he would likely react much the same. Not to mention the effect making these prophecies easily understandable by all would have on the outcome of history.

God also needed to be relatively brief. These writings would have to be hand copied and passed down for centuries. God did all these things very well. Those writings would be understand by many at the appropriate time intended. Others would take these prophecies and try to force them to fit their own personal interpretations.

Man simply uses the prophecies to do what he does best. Disagree.

I don't really want to waste too much time on "stupid arguments" that serve only to delay getting in to the prophecies themselves so I won't. I will continue forward in making my case. There is only one interpretation of these prophecies that holds water under close examination. All others will fail.

 


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
gramster wrote:jcgadfly

gramster wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

gramster wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

gramster wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

gramster wrote:

In bible prophecy time can be either literal or symbolic. It is important to know the difference. A day can be one literal day, or it can be symbolic for a year. One example is in Ezekiel 4:6 "I have assigned you a number of days corresponding to the number of years of their iniquity". We will also discover that some of the Daniel prophecies can not be referring to literal time and make any sense.

In the bible we also find a month to be equal to 30 days. The flood story gives us a good example of this. Genesis 7:11 the flood event starts on the 2nd month 17th day, and Genesis 8:4 it ends on the 7th month 17th day. This comes out to exactly 5 months. In Genesis 8:24 it says the "water prevailed on the earth 150 days". 150 days/5 months = 30 days.

In Daniel the term Time or Times is also used. The term time is translated to equal one year and times or (two times) refers to 2 years. The word used is "iddan" translated by Strongs Hebrew Lexicoon "a set time: technically a year: time".

As we get into time prophecies we will hold the position that the passage could be literal or symbolic. We will examine both possibilities and see which makes sense.

In other word, the prophecy can be interpreted to fit whatever conclusion is desired.

This issue is why the Bible "prophecies have a lot in common with the "prophecies" of Nostradamus.

Not at all. The prophecies in Daniel are very specific and detailed. A detailed examination will eliminate all but the correct interpretations. That is why it is important to establish sound basic principles.

I have not seen any Nostradamus prophecies that come anywhere close to paralleling those in the bible.

If they are "very specific and detailed" why do they have such varied interpretations (all of them claiming to be correct)?

Let me rephrase your question. If the prophecies in Daniel which are given largely in symbolic terms are very specific and detailed than why do people (who, if you get 4 into the same room can't seem to all agree on anything) have varied interpretations?

Why do scientists so often disagree when examining the same evidence? Why are some people Republicans, others Democrats, and others even Libertarians? That's the nature of mankind. It wouldn't be expected to be any different with Bible Prophecy.

That shouldn't keep us from closely examining the evidence. A close examination will show that there is only one set of powers that this prophecy can be referring to. No other powers on earth will stand up to close examination.

 

Simple, the prophecies didn't come from God. I thought this was going to be hard. See, you forgot to add that if these people believe in the Bible and that it was inspired by God and that these prophecies came from God -they should only have one interpretation. "Thus saith the Lord" shouldn't allow for wiggle room.

Why do scientists disagree when viewing evidence? Mostly because of a suspicion that the evidence is incomplete not that the evidence doesn't lead to the conclusion. Again, if it's evidence from a Gos, shouldn't it be incontrovertible? should really be playing the game of "When God said this he really didn't mean..."?

Not against closely examining evidence - I hope you bring some. I don't expect you'll do this but as a hint - "God said it. I believe it. That settles it." isn't evidence.

Your logic is faulty. You once again fail to use the much touted "critical analysis" made so much a while back.

It doesn't take much gray matter to figure this one out. If God had written these prophecies in a manner in which they would be easily understood by all, it would probably have caused all kinds of problems He would have wanted to avoid.

If a would be ruler had lofty ambitions that conflicted with these prophecies he would likely become very hostile to the writings and the people that had it. Much persecution would likely result and destruction of the writings as well.

If an existing ruler that wanted his kingdom to "last forever" read the prophecies, he would likely react much the same. Not to mention the effect making these prophecies easily understandable by all would have on the outcome of history.

God also needed to be relatively brief. These writings would have to be hand copied and passed down for centuries. God did all these things very well. Those writings would be understand by many at the appropriate time intended. Others would take these prophecies and try to force them to fit their own personal interpretations.

Man simply uses the prophecies to do what he does best. Disagree.

I don't really want to waste too much time on "stupid arguments" that serve only to delay getting in to the prophecies themselves so I won't. I will continue forward in making my case. There is only one interpretation of these prophecies that holds water under close examination. All others will fail.

 

So your God obfuscates information intentionally? Isn't God not supposed to be the one who is the author of confusion?

How does one know when he is being straight with them? Was God spreading a load of bull when he claimed that he loved us and wanted Heaven for us? 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


gramster
Theist
Posts: 501
Joined: 2010-05-15
User is offlineOffline
A closer look - The little horn of Daniel 7

gramster wrote:

 

gramster wrote:

As for the Jews, for now, we will go with "I don't place much stock on what they believe". You are free to place whatever value you wish. There is some merit in the study of ancient Jewish beliefs as it can help us gain some perspective. But that's about it.

As for freeminer as an ally, he has his own views. I am sure they differ some from mine. From time to time I will probably refer to his blags just as I do yours.

As to making "the jump" from the prophecies referring to just one small region of the planet to the whole earth, you are getting ahead of yourself. I have as of yet made any such claims. If and/or when I do, I will at that point give my reasons for doing so.

As for Medo-Persia being inferior referring to culture rather than length of reign and power that is the way I see it. You see it differently. That is a matter of personal interpretation. Either view could be correct.

Yes, Greek culture is full of paganism and pagan values. It does not agree with Christianity.

As we continue, I will focus on the kingdoms I believe are being referred to and why. As we go forward I believe the other kingdoms will drop out along the way. That is what we will be looking at.aka

Interesting.

Are you saying you don't place much stock in the Bible? A bunch of Jews did write it (except for the heretics that wrote the parts you like aka the replacement religion).

Greek culture doesn't agree with Christianity? True enough. Christianity is a Roman construct whose texts were written in Greek. Why else would the religion be so friendly with the conquerors?

I look forward to your attempts at moving from Alexander and Antiochus to the EU vs. Israel and the US, for example. You might even go as far as including bin Laden. Or how when Daniel mentions "days" it really means "years"

 

For now I will ignore your quips about Christianity and get down to business. As for Antiochus, the later days, and a day for a year, you are again getting ahead of yourself.

When we study Daniel's prophecies about the kingdoms we find a pattern of "repeat and enlarge". Each vision given Daniel became progressively detailed. We see the same kingdoms but get more specifics. I will give a brief overview.

 

Daniel 2. This prophecy must foretell as it says "what will be in the latter days". Since it starts with Babylon and ends in the later days it stands to reason that it refers to major players along the way. Kingdoms relevant to God's people starting with the first kingdom to follow Babylon. So we will start there.

1. We have the head of gold - which we know is Babylon.

2. We have the chest and arms of silver - which I believe is Medo-Persia.

3. We have the belly and thighs of bronze - which I believe is Greece.

4. We have the legs of Iron - which I believe to be Rome. Out of this kingdom we get a divided kingdom which shall last until God sets up His kingdom, which is still in the future.

Since we still have some debate to the identity of these kingdoms we will hold open the possibility I may be wrong. We will continue to Daniel 7 to see if we find any of these kingdoms there and look at any conflicting differences or similarities.

Daniel 7. Here we have four beasts representing four kingdoms.

1. We have a lion with eagles wings - which I believe to be Babylon.

2. We have a bear raised up on on side - which I believe to be Medo-Persia.

3. We have a leopard with four wings and four heads - which I believe to be Greece.

4. We have a dreadful, terrible, and exceedingly strong beast with iron teeth, and 10 horns - which I believe to be Rome. Out of this beast comes a little horn we will discuss later.

Daniel 8 gives further details.

1. The first kingdom is not mentioned here. This prophecy was given toward the end of Nebuchadnezzars Babylonian kingdom.

2. We have a Ram with two horns, one higher than the other - It is identified for us as the "kings of Media and Persia".

3. We have a Goat which "came...not touching the ground". We would call this really flying. The goat is identified for us as Greece. It had four horns which are identified as "four kingdoms (that) shall arise out of that nation.

4. We have a little horn which will require much more detailed investigation to positively identify. I will do this later separately.

Some points of interest.

The first kingdom in Daniel 7 being described as a loin with eagles wings fits nicely as a symbol for Babylon. The lion-shaped bas-reliefs on Babylons baked-brick walls, and the large stone lion that still crouches over a fallen stone woman in Babylon help attest to this. The British Museum's finding of lions with eagles wings in Babylon also add weight to this. I'll not get to deep into the archeology in this brief overview.

The second kingdom in Daniel 7 being a bear raised up on one side - coincides with the Ram in Daniel 8 which is identified as Medo-Persia that had one horn larger than the other. (Symbols of Persia's being the greater). The three ribs in the bears mouth coincide with the nations of Egypt, Babylon and Lydia, which were overthrown by Medo-Persia.

The third kingdom in Daniel 7 being a leopard having four wings - symbolizes the speed in which Alexander the Great conquered the then known world. This coincides with the goat that came "not touching the ground", or flying. The four heads represent the four generals of Alexander and coincide with Daniel 8's four horns which are identified for us as four kingdoms.

The fourth beast of Daniel 7 and the little horn of Daniel 8 will be addressed separately as they are much too involved to go into in this brief overview.

To me the identification of these kingdoms is obvious. You probably disagree. As we move forward I will strengthen these assumptions. Right now I am just asserting that this interpretation fits quite nicely. If you can see any reason why it does not work let me know. If you concede this is a possibility (not necessarily the only one) than I will proceed deeper into the fourth beast and the little horn. 

This will get a lot more detailed and other options will drop out one by one along the way.

More later.

Gramps

 

Now for the 4th beast of Daniel 7. This beast follows the Leopard with 4wings and 4 heads which remarkably resembles the male goat in Daniel 8 identified for us as Greece.

Daniel 7:7 "After this I saw...a fourth beast, dreadful and terrible, exceedingly strong. It had huge iron teeth; it was devouring, breaking in pieces, and trampling the residue with its feet...and it had 10 horns".

This is a description of a major power. We can easily rule out individual and rather insignificant kings and kingdoms.

Daniel 7:8 "I was considering the horns, and there was another horn, a little one, coming up among them, before whom three of the first horns were plucked out by the roots...eyes like the eyes of a man, and a mouth speaking pompous words".

The 10 horns and the little horn play an important role in identifying this 4th beast. Helpfully, Daniel is given an explanation specifically addressing these horns.

Daniel 7:23-25 "...the fourth beast shall be a fourth kingdom...the ten horns are ten kings who shall rise from this kingdom. And another shall arise after them; he shall be different from the first ones, and shall subdue three kings. He shall speak pompous words against the most high, shall persecute the saints...intend to change times and law...the saints shall be given into his hand for a time times and half a time".

Identifying points of the 4th beast:

1. An exceedingly great and powerful kingdom.

2. Had ten kings arise out of its dominion.

3. Had another power arise out of these 10 kingdoms after them that would speak pompous words against God, shall persecute the saints for a time times and half a time, and intend to change times and laws.

The only major kingdom following Greece (or Macedonia) that fits this mold is Rome. Rome was not conquered by a single power, or even an alliance of powers. The Goths or Germanic tribes began moving in and breaking up the Roman empire. These tribes became major nations of Western Europe that still exist today.

Anglo-Saxons became England

Franks became France

Burgundians became Switzerland

Visigoths became Spain

Alamanni became Germany

Suevi became Portugal

Lombards became Italy

Heruli destroyed completely AD 493

Vandals destroyed completely AD 534

Ostrogoths destroyed completely AD 538

These ten tribes correspond to the ten toes on the image, and the ten horns on the beast of Daniel 7. The three tribes that were destroyed are the three kings subdued by the little horn.

Next we will go further into the identifying points of the little horn. This will give us further details helping to confirm Rome as the 4th beast of Daniel 7. After that I will consider any alternate kingdom suggested as this 4th beast and see if it can possibly fit this prophecy.

 

 

 

Now we will take a closer look at the little horn of Daniel 7. This power will help to verify the powers above. It will also help us to understand the other prophecies going forward that take us down to the "times of the end" as promised in the book of Daniel.

There are 8 identifying marks for this power. We will examine them all.

1. It rose up out of the 4th beast, 8:24.

2. It appeared after the 10 other horns, 8:24.

3. It started small and became big, 8:20.

4. Three of the 10 horns would be "plucked up by the roots" to allow it's rise, 8:24.

5. It would have "eyes like the eyes of a man, and a mouth speaking great things, and speak "words against the most high", 8:25.

6. It would "wear out the saints of the most high", 8:25.

7. It would "think to change times and laws".

8. It would be allotted special power for "a time, two times, and half a time", 8:25.

The mighty Roman Empire wasn't conquered by another rising empire like the kingdoms before it. It deteriorated slowly and broke apart into many divisions. Many of these became familiar nations that we have with us yet today. Yet Daniel 7 speaks of a "little horn" power that was to arise from all of this and become great.

As pagan Rome was in the process of decline, the holy Roman Empire was just coming on the scene. It started small, and with time became quite powerful. We have 8 points of identification for this little horn. These 8 points of identification can only refer to this power. No other power on earth fits these 8 points. We will examine each of these 8 points in detail to see how well they fit.

 


100percentAtheist
atheist
100percentAtheist's picture
Posts: 679
Joined: 2010-05-02
User is offlineOffline
freeminer

freeminer wrote:

 evolutionists and creationists have the same evidence. 

 

Enough is enough.

 

Freeminer,

may I respectfully call you an idiot and support my claim with the evidence.

The theory of evolution (which may not be what you think it is, btw) is a SCIENTIFIC theory.

Creationism has nothing to do with SCIENCE.

 

Long time ago people-people decided to call certain findings science.  They set up a list of rules and conditions that must be fulfilled for something to be called science.  The two main rules are that any SCIENTIFIC theory must be verifiable and falsifiable.  If any of these rules is not satisfied the theory is not SCIENTIFIC by its definition, want you or not.  Then you theory (creationism or whatever) is just your belief, a product of your imagination.  It may not be bad, but it is different from science. It is not science.

 

For this simple reason that one is science and another is not, placing creationism and the theory of evolution on the  same plate is an act of idiotism.


gramster
Theist
Posts: 501
Joined: 2010-05-15
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:gramster

jcgadfly wrote:

gramster wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

gramster wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

gramster wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

gramster wrote:

In bible prophecy time can be either literal or symbolic. It is important to know the difference. A day can be one literal day, or it can be symbolic for a year. One example is in Ezekiel 4:6 "I have assigned you a number of days corresponding to the number of years of their iniquity". We will also discover that some of the Daniel prophecies can not be referring to literal time and make any sense.

In the bible we also find a month to be equal to 30 days. The flood story gives us a good example of this. Genesis 7:11 the flood event starts on the 2nd month 17th day, and Genesis 8:4 it ends on the 7th month 17th day. This comes out to exactly 5 months. In Genesis 8:24 it says the "water prevailed on the earth 150 days". 150 days/5 months = 30 days.

In Daniel the term Time or Times is also used. The term time is translated to equal one year and times or (two times) refers to 2 years. The word used is "iddan" translated by Strongs Hebrew Lexicoon "a set time: technically a year: time".

As we get into time prophecies we will hold the position that the passage could be literal or symbolic. We will examine both possibilities and see which makes sense.

In other word, the prophecy can be interpreted to fit whatever conclusion is desired.

This issue is why the Bible "prophecies have a lot in common with the "prophecies" of Nostradamus.

Not at all. The prophecies in Daniel are very specific and detailed. A detailed examination will eliminate all but the correct interpretations. That is why it is important to establish sound basic principles.

I have not seen any Nostradamus prophecies that come anywhere close to paralleling those in the bible.

If they are "very specific and detailed" why do they have such varied interpretations (all of them claiming to be correct)?

Let me rephrase your question. If the prophecies in Daniel which are given largely in symbolic terms are very specific and detailed than why do people (who, if you get 4 into the same room can't seem to all agree on anything) have varied interpretations?

Why do scientists so often disagree when examining the same evidence? Why are some people Republicans, others Democrats, and others even Libertarians? That's the nature of mankind. It wouldn't be expected to be any different with Bible Prophecy.

That shouldn't keep us from closely examining the evidence. A close examination will show that there is only one set of powers that this prophecy can be referring to. No other powers on earth will stand up to close examination.

 

Simple, the prophecies didn't come from God. I thought this was going to be hard. See, you forgot to add that if these people believe in the Bible and that it was inspired by God and that these prophecies came from God -they should only have one interpretation. "Thus saith the Lord" shouldn't allow for wiggle room.

Why do scientists disagree when viewing evidence? Mostly because of a suspicion that the evidence is incomplete not that the evidence doesn't lead to the conclusion. Again, if it's evidence from a Gos, shouldn't it be incontrovertible? should really be playing the game of "When God said this he really didn't mean..."?

Not against closely examining evidence - I hope you bring some. I don't expect you'll do this but as a hint - "God said it. I believe it. That settles it." isn't evidence.

Your logic is faulty. You once again fail to use the much touted "critical analysis" made so much a while back.

It doesn't take much gray matter to figure this one out. If God had written these prophecies in a manner in which they would be easily understood by all, it would probably have caused all kinds of problems He would have wanted to avoid.

If a would be ruler had lofty ambitions that conflicted with these prophecies he would likely become very hostile to the writings and the people that had it. Much persecution would likely result and destruction of the writings as well.

If an existing ruler that wanted his kingdom to "last forever" read the prophecies, he would likely react much the same. Not to mention the effect making these prophecies easily understandable by all would have on the outcome of history.

God also needed to be relatively brief. These writings would have to be hand copied and passed down for centuries. God did all these things very well. Those writings would be understand by many at the appropriate time intended. Others would take these prophecies and try to force them to fit their own personal interpretations.

Man simply uses the prophecies to do what he does best. Disagree.

I don't really want to waste too much time on "stupid arguments" that serve only to delay getting in to the prophecies themselves so I won't. I will continue forward in making my case. There is only one interpretation of these prophecies that holds water under close examination. All others will fail.

 

So your God obfuscates information intentionally? Isn't God not supposed to be the one who is the author of confusion?

How does one know when he is being straight with them? Was God spreading a load of bull when he claimed that he loved us and wanted Heaven for us? 

You must be terribly afraid of actually examining the prophecies of Daniel themselves to be throwing out this much bull. It is more than obvious that these prophecies were written in symbolic language. The text itself makes this plain. The beasts represent kingdoms or powers, the horn is the first king etc.

As for God claiming He loves us and wants us to be in heaven, there is no reason to believe this to by symbolic.

Quit throwing crap in the fan. That's all your doing.

As for myself I will continue the examination of the actual prophecies themselves.

Gramps


NoMoreCrazyPeople
atheistSuperfan
NoMoreCrazyPeople's picture
Posts: 969
Joined: 2009-10-14
User is offlineOffline
100percentAtheist

100percentAtheist wrote:

freeminer wrote:

 evolutionists and creationists have the same evidence. 

 

Enough is enough.

 

Freeminer,

may I respectfully call you an idiot and support my claim with the evidence.

The theory of evolution (which may not be what you think it is, btw) is a SCIENTIFIC theory.

Creationism has nothing to do with SCIENCE.

 

Long time ago people-people decided to call certain findings science.  They set up a list of rules and conditions that must be fulfilled for something to be called science.  The two main rules are that any SCIENTIFIC theory must be verifiable and falsifiable.  If any of these rules is not satisfied the theory is not SCIENTIFIC by its definition, want you or not.  Then you theory (creationism or whatever) is just your belief, a product of your imagination.  It may not be bad, but it is different from science. It is not science.

 

For this simple reason that one is science and another is not, placing creationism and the theory of evolution on the  same plate is an act of idiotism.

 


100percentAtheist
atheist
100percentAtheist's picture
Posts: 679
Joined: 2010-05-02
User is offlineOffline
gramster wrote:As for myself

gramster wrote:

As for myself I will continue the examination of the actual prophecies themselves

 

Examining?  Seriously?

Maybe you can tell us under what conditions you will conclude the prophecies are false and Jesus never existed?

If you can't set such conditions, so your theory is unfalsifiable and there is nothing to examine.


100percentAtheist
atheist
100percentAtheist's picture
Posts: 679
Joined: 2010-05-02
User is offlineOffline
NoMoreCrazyPeople

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:

 

 

I'm really tired of people telling how scientific is this and that, how historical is their bible, etc.

Recently, a former friend of mine turned out to get crazy of homeopathy.  It works so beautiful, he said, for those for whom it works...  he dismissed the studies showing the response is no more than placibo effect by claiming large corporations are behind modern medecine which is evil.

Then, I told this story to my wife, and she started to tell me that homeopathy works, and even covered by our insurance (!!!) and even her doctor (Dr. Smith) has recently prescribed her some homeopathy medicine.  Ok, quick examination of the "medicine" revealed that a tiny local company that produces this medicine and the medicine itself were founded by .... , you guessed it!, Dr. Smith!!!   My wife is silent about homeopathy since then.

 

Edit:  So, if you believe, keep doing so if it helps you.   When you start claiming how real and materialistic your idealistic claims are, here we come to a big trouble.  Religions are no scienitific and non-materialistic.  By definision. No bullshit, check your dictionaries.

 

 


NoMoreCrazyPeople
atheistSuperfan
NoMoreCrazyPeople's picture
Posts: 969
Joined: 2009-10-14
User is offlineOffline
100percentAtheist

100percentAtheist wrote:

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:

 

 

I'm really tired of people telling how scientific is this and that, how historical is their bible, etc.

Recently, a former friend of mine turned out to get crazy of homeopathy.  It works so beautiful, he said, for those for whom it works...  he dismissed the studies showing the response is no more than placibo effect by claiming large corporations are behind modern medecine which is evil.

Then, I told this story to my wife, and she started to tell me that homeopathy works, and even covered by our insurance (!!!) and even her doctor (Dr. Smith) has recently prescribed her some homeopathy medicine.  Ok, quick examination of the "medicine" revealed that a tiny local company that produces this medicine and the medicine itself were founded by .... , you guessed it!, Dr. Smith!!!   My wife is silent about homeopathy since then.

 

 

 

"Do you know what they call alternative medicine that has been proven to work?  MEDICINE!!!"

 

Tim Minchin

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0W7Jbc_Vhw

 


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
gramster wrote:jcgadfly

gramster wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

gramster wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

gramster wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

gramster wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

gramster wrote:

In bible prophecy time can be either literal or symbolic. It is important to know the difference. A day can be one literal day, or it can be symbolic for a year. One example is in Ezekiel 4:6 "I have assigned you a number of days corresponding to the number of years of their iniquity". We will also discover that some of the Daniel prophecies can not be referring to literal time and make any sense.

In the bible we also find a month to be equal to 30 days. The flood story gives us a good example of this. Genesis 7:11 the flood event starts on the 2nd month 17th day, and Genesis 8:4 it ends on the 7th month 17th day. This comes out to exactly 5 months. In Genesis 8:24 it says the "water prevailed on the earth 150 days". 150 days/5 months = 30 days.

In Daniel the term Time or Times is also used. The term time is translated to equal one year and times or (two times) refers to 2 years. The word used is "iddan" translated by Strongs Hebrew Lexicoon "a set time: technically a year: time".

As we get into time prophecies we will hold the position that the passage could be literal or symbolic. We will examine both possibilities and see which makes sense.

In other word, the prophecy can be interpreted to fit whatever conclusion is desired.

This issue is why the Bible "prophecies have a lot in common with the "prophecies" of Nostradamus.

Not at all. The prophecies in Daniel are very specific and detailed. A detailed examination will eliminate all but the correct interpretations. That is why it is important to establish sound basic principles.

I have not seen any Nostradamus prophecies that come anywhere close to paralleling those in the bible.

If they are "very specific and detailed" why do they have such varied interpretations (all of them claiming to be correct)?

Let me rephrase your question. If the prophecies in Daniel which are given largely in symbolic terms are very specific and detailed than why do people (who, if you get 4 into the same room can't seem to all agree on anything) have varied interpretations?

Why do scientists so often disagree when examining the same evidence? Why are some people Republicans, others Democrats, and others even Libertarians? That's the nature of mankind. It wouldn't be expected to be any different with Bible Prophecy.

That shouldn't keep us from closely examining the evidence. A close examination will show that there is only one set of powers that this prophecy can be referring to. No other powers on earth will stand up to close examination.

 

Simple, the prophecies didn't come from God. I thought this was going to be hard. See, you forgot to add that if these people believe in the Bible and that it was inspired by God and that these prophecies came from God -they should only have one interpretation. "Thus saith the Lord" shouldn't allow for wiggle room.

Why do scientists disagree when viewing evidence? Mostly because of a suspicion that the evidence is incomplete not that the evidence doesn't lead to the conclusion. Again, if it's evidence from a Gos, shouldn't it be incontrovertible? should really be playing the game of "When God said this he really didn't mean..."?

Not against closely examining evidence - I hope you bring some. I don't expect you'll do this but as a hint - "God said it. I believe it. That settles it." isn't evidence.

Your logic is faulty. You once again fail to use the much touted "critical analysis" made so much a while back.

It doesn't take much gray matter to figure this one out. If God had written these prophecies in a manner in which they would be easily understood by all, it would probably have caused all kinds of problems He would have wanted to avoid.

If a would be ruler had lofty ambitions that conflicted with these prophecies he would likely become very hostile to the writings and the people that had it. Much persecution would likely result and destruction of the writings as well.

If an existing ruler that wanted his kingdom to "last forever" read the prophecies, he would likely react much the same. Not to mention the effect making these prophecies easily understandable by all would have on the outcome of history.

God also needed to be relatively brief. These writings would have to be hand copied and passed down for centuries. God did all these things very well. Those writings would be understand by many at the appropriate time intended. Others would take these prophecies and try to force them to fit their own personal interpretations.

Man simply uses the prophecies to do what he does best. Disagree.

I don't really want to waste too much time on "stupid arguments" that serve only to delay getting in to the prophecies themselves so I won't. I will continue forward in making my case. There is only one interpretation of these prophecies that holds water under close examination. All others will fail.

 

So your God obfuscates information intentionally? Isn't God not supposed to be the one who is the author of confusion?

How does one know when he is being straight with them? Was God spreading a load of bull when he claimed that he loved us and wanted Heaven for us? 

You must be terribly afraid of actually examining the prophecies of Daniel themselves to be throwing out this much bull. It is more than obvious that these prophecies were written in symbolic language. The text itself makes this plain. The beasts represent kingdoms or powers, the horn is the first king etc.

As for God claiming He loves us and wants us to be in heaven, there is no reason to believe this to by symbolic.

Quit throwing crap in the fan. That's all your doing.

As for myself I will continue the examination of the actual prophecies themselves.

Gramps

You mean because I have seem several different interpretations of something written in symbolic language that supposedly  was perfectly clear to both Daniel and Nebuchadnezzar?

Or because I don't like to accept interpretations that are made that are based on fear of the EU or the old Common Market? 

If I'm using a fan, it's because I'm clearing away your crap. It seems I need a larger fan.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


100percentAtheist
atheist
100percentAtheist's picture
Posts: 679
Joined: 2010-05-02
User is offlineOffline
To illustrate where we are

To illustrate where we are on science and education, I'd like to give a fresh example from a topix forum.

Theists ask tough questions. 

Atheist:

"If you consider that the laws of physics are the fundamental laws of the universe. Those laws would be unsustainable if supernatural entities could override them. Yet those laws hold firm, therefore supernatural entities are absurd."

Theist:

"Don't we override the laws of physics (gravity) when a plane flys? "

 


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
 freeminer

 

freeminer wrote:

 

 

 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
You misunderstood the promise that was made without conditions to David after the God screwed King Saul over.

 

not so.............the above quote from 1 Kings 2 is a direct quote of David who clearly understood it to be conditional.

 

He understood the god would back the leader if the leader followed the god. Other than not supporting the leader nothing is claimed in regard to taking away the kingdom from David's lineage.

 

freeminer wrote:

 

 

 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
In II Sam 7:4-17 the prophet Nathan communicated to David what he claimed the god told him or what Nathan made up, whichever.

 

well which is it? This is the promise to David

 

  16"(AB)Your house and your kingdom shall endure before Me forever; your throne shall be established forever."'"

 

and "the prince" of the Millennial reign in Ezekiel refers to him..

 

Since Yahweh is the creation of man, it's fairly obvious.

 

 

 

freeminer wrote:

 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

 

"15 but My mercy shall not depart from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away before thee. 16 And thy house and thy kingdom shall be made sure for ever before thee; thy throne shall be established for ever.'

  

This does not allow the throne to depart at all regardless of how evil or idolatrous the king.

 

but the passage quoted from Kings makes it clear that possession of the throne was conditional. If scripture had not been consistent in this, you would be very quick to make the point! God said, "your throne shall  be established for ever"..... future.

 

Your interpretation, though it doesn't indicate exactly what will happen at all. Using the bad translation that you have you can make up whatever you'd like to put in the mouth of David.          

 

 

freeminer wrote:

 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
Then you tried to find a way to weenie the god out of this iron clad contract using 1 kings 2:1-5 - "1 Now the days of David drew nigh that he should die; and he charged Solomon his son, saying: 2 'I go the way of all the earth; be thou strong therefore, and show thyself a man; 3 and keep the charge of the LORD thy God, to walk in His ways, to keep His statutes, and His commandments, and His ordinances, and His testimonies, according to that which is written in the law of Moses, that thou mayest prosper in all that thou doest, and whithersoever thou turnest thyself; 4 that the LORD may establish His word which He spoke concerning me, saying: If thy children take heed to their way, to walk before Me in truth with all their heart and with all their soul, there shall not fail thee, said He, a man on the throne of Israel."

 

 

 

Now what we have here is David giving an opinion as to his interpretation of the iron clad contract made in 2 Sam. What isn't said here is what happens if the king is an evil twit. V5 goes on to discuss activities in regard to the kingdom and nothing is mentioned at all what happens if the king does not follow the god. So 2 Sam prevails as it is the original contract. In 2 Sam the god promised to stick it to the kings who didn't follow him by using the rod of men and the stripes of the children of men. One might interpret this to mean he'd allow other nations to win wars or battles against the evil god denying king. But what does not happen is the end of the iron clad contract for his actions as it is promised to endure forever. Shall not fail thee, does not mean lack a man on the throne, bad translation and not in pace with 2 Samuel's promise.

 

firstly, again you choose to ignore the conditionality.........."If thy children take heed to their way, to walk before Me in truth with all their heart and with all their soul," In fact, you, yourself clearly recognise the meaning of "the rod of men". The "iron clad" part, that David's throne will be established forever, is the same as the statement in Daniel........that in the Roman period, God would establish a Kingdom without end.

 

What you want to insert in 2 Kings is not there. Nothing is said to indicate the god would take away the throne from David's lineage, only he would allow punishment in kind.

 

freeminer wrote:

 

 

 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
The god can't recant on forever on this promise or weasel out of it, except by standing by and allowing strife etc to occur. The next leader in the lineage would then get his chance to follow the way of the god or not. If not, he'd also get his ass kicked and on and on.

 

the Kingdom is established..... if it had related to the occupant of the throne, the words in Daniel would be at best superfluous. God says:

 

 Jeremiah 33:14

" 'The days are coming,' declares the LORD, 'when I will fulfill the gracious promise I made to the house of Israel and to the house of Judah.

Jeremiah 33:13-15 (in Context)

 

 

 

 

As you so love to say, see above. 2 Kings 2:1-5 on does not say what you claim. Shall not fail thee still does not mean what you claim.

 

freeminer wrote:

 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
Except, going on down the road it ends when Judah as a Kingdom is no more. No matter how you try to squeak out of this, 587 years pass with no sceptre in the hands of a David descendent until the supposed birth of Yahshua bar Joseph. And he does not rule the nation, Rome does through Herod, a non-Jew.
my "squeaking out" doesn't enter the question, either you want to understand prophecy or you don't. You rather overlook the fact that the Jews themselves chose to divide the Kingdom. Ezekiel prophecies their reunification.

 

 

 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
So the god broke the iron clad contract and therefore can't be trusted as he obviously lied in 2 Samuel. The promise was forever regardless, and so he is a deceiver.

 

See above. You are quite entitled to deceive yourself but you'll never be able to say you didn't have it explained.

 

See above. Whatever works for you to believe a fantastic unrealistic story. You can't say that you didn't have a more logical explanation suggested than the mystical magic you hold to be real.

 

freeminer wrote:

 

 

 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
And again, no king for 587 years and the god broke the iron clad contract and is therefore a deceiver, not to be trusted.

 

see above....... the choice is yours, my job is just to ensure you know.

 

The choice is yours!! You can take the red pill and come to reality or you can take the blue pill and think you are eating steak!

 

 

freeminer wrote:

 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
So the sceptre, the legal right to the throne, did not pass from Judah.

 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
No, the sceptre was eliminated permanently.

 

your choice.

 

I see you took the blue pill.

 

freeminer wrote:

 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
Cool, you have copies of notarized birth certificates. Can I see them? If not, it is hearsay.

 

see my note on historical mysticism.

 

Hearsay definition from distionary.com

 

hear·say

 

[heer-sey] 

–noun

1.unverified, unofficial information gained or acquired from another and not part of one's direct knowledge: I pay no attention to hearsay.

 

2.an item of idle or unverified information or gossip; rumor: a malicious hearsay.

 

 

 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
But the problem is Joseph was not the father of Jesus, supposedly the Holy Spirit was.

 

freeminer wrote:
and this is the reason the blood line of descent from David to Jesus had to be established through the line of Mary.

 

 Keep that in mind.

 

 

freeminer wrote:

 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
So was James, aka James the Just the brother of Jesus?

 

yes, specifically, a half-brother.

 

As James the Just was a priest and priests could only come from the tribe of Levi, and Joseph in Matthew was shown to be of the tribe of Judah either Mary was of the tribe of Levi or Mary was promiscuous.

 

 

 

freeminer wrote:
Of the house of David (2 Samuel 7:12-16; Matthew 1:1)

 

 

 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
2 Sam 7:12-17 JPS - is the promise to David through Nathan the prophet from the god - "12 When thy days are fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, that shall proceed out of thy body, and I will establish his kingdom. 13 He shall build a house for My name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom for ever. 14 I will be to him for a father, and he shall be to Me for a son; if he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men; 15 but My mercy shall not depart from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away before thee. 16 And thy house and thy kingdom shall be made sure for ever before thee; thy throne shall be established for ever.' 17 According to all these words, and according to all this vision, so did Nathan speak unto David."

 

 

 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
And again, in v16, the god promised that David's line would endure forever. So was Nebuchadnezzar, Nabonidus, Cyrus and all the Persian kings, Alexander, the generals who inherited Alexanders' empire, the Hasmonians, the Romans, Byzantines, the Islamic caliphs, the crusader kings, the Ottoman Turks, the British, the UN, and now the democratic nation of Israel all of David's lineage?

 

 

 

freeminer wrote:
no, none of these were of David's lineage and therefore not of his "house". Christ is however, and Daniel tells us that a God established a Kingdom in his time which is established "for ever". End time prophecy deals with the establishment of this kingdom physically, on Earth.  

 

 

freeminer wrote:

 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
]Then therefore the sceptre was eliminated and the god broke the contract and is a deceiver who keeps not his word. No king or ruler from 587 BCE until the democracy (if that is what it is in the state of Israel) in 1947. And since a democracy (I use that loosely here) is in charge of Israel today there is no lineage still.

 

well that clearly depends on whether you believe in the resurrection or not......which, surprise, surprise, you don't! If you believe that all these prophecies are the product of human fabrication and you don't find the questions of coherence and motivation puzzling........so be it.  

 

I consider all these prophecies to be wishful thinking, misunderstanding and erroneous.

 

freeminer wrote:

 

 

 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
Jesus even if real, died and disappeared. Though, he said he was not one of us (humans) anyway, so therefore he couldn't be in the line of succession. Even if he was a half-god like Hercules, he was alien to the Earth and said so himself.

 

See above. The Biblical claim is that Jesus is fully Man and fully God. Thousands claim to know him. Current events are consistent with his prophecies. He didn't say he was alien! he said his Kingdom was not of this world........which during the Age of Grace.....it isn't. 

 

Oringinally translated the cliam in John 18:36 was "The original Greek text has Jesus saying something very different: “My Kingdom is not FROM this world”-see http://www.liverpool.anglican.org/index.php?p=1102

In this article the author shows it was from his concept of a god for authority.

However, appearing to be a god may just be incorrectly understood if you don't grasp the technology. Thus. the possibility is open Jesus was an alien from another world, which is what is said here.

There are billions and billions of stars with the possibility of hosting the homeworld of Jesus.

Since Jesus claimed to be not of this world that can only mean he was an alien.

 

Definition from Dictionary.com

 

al·ien

eyl-yuh n, ey-lee-uh n] 

–noun 

1. a resident born in or belonging to another country who has not acquired citizenship by naturalization ( distinguished from citizen). 

2. a foreigner. 

3. a person who has been estranged or excluded. 

4. a creature from outer space; extraterrestrial. 

 

 

Have we just located the Homeworld of Jesus? See - http://news.discovery.com/space/earth-like-planet-life.html

Or did L Ron Hubbard write a book series revealing the real story  – see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mission_Earth_%28novel%29

Or did Asimov in regards to Trantor and the Foundation?

Or has Syfy Channel done so with BSG and we are all from the 12 colonies intermixed with Cylons? And Jesus was a Cylon or possibly Baltar.

 

 

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


freeminer
Theist
Posts: 304
Joined: 2010-07-04
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:He understood the

 

Quote:
He understood the god would back the leader if the leader followed the god. Other than not supporting the leader nothing is claimed in regard to taking away the kingdom from David's lineage.

oh dear......... if God makes the statement, "you will always have a man to occupy your throne if .........etc".........how much clearer would you like it? As has been pointed out, the kingdom has not been removed from David's lineage...... do keep up!

 

Quote:
Since Yahweh is the creation of man, it's fairly obvious.

unsubstantiated presupposition of the highly irrational type......... with what conceivable motivation?

Quote:

 "15 but My mercy shall not depart from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away before thee. 16 And thy house and thy kingdom shall be made sure for ever before thee; thy throne shall be established for ever.'

Quote:
Your interpretation, though it doesn't indicate exactly what will happen at all. Using the bad translation that you have you can make up whatever you'd like to put in the mouth of David.

aaaah! now you have a problem with the NAB. I have a wide variety at my disposal........or you can have it in the Masoretic or LXX.........just say the word.          

Quote:
What you want to insert in 2 Kings is not there. Nothing is said to indicate the god would take away the throne from David's lineage, only he would allow punishment in kind.

this is a bizarre line of argument. You admitted yourself that the "rod of man" was a clear indication. Furthermore, God spelt it out to Zedekiah in pin sharp detail even as Nebuchadnezzar was knocking on the door! Would you like references?

Quote:
As you so love to say, see above. 2 Kings 2:1-5 on does not say what you claim. Shall not fail thee still does not mean what you claim.

This is weird! What happened is a matter of record. Your argument appears to be that prophecy cannot be prophecy because God didn't give enough warning!

Isaiah had already warned the nation:

 7 The vineyard of the LORD Almighty
       is the house of Israel,
       and the men of Judah
       are the garden of his delight.
       And he looked for justice, but saw bloodshed;
       for righteousness, but heard cries of distress.

 8 Woe to you who add house to house
       and join field to field
       till no space is left
       and you live alone in the land.

 9 The LORD Almighty has declared in my hearing:
       "Surely the great houses will become desolate,
       the fine mansions left without occupants.

 10 A ten-acre [a] vineyard will produce only a bath [b] of wine,
       a homer [c] of seed only an ephah [d] of grain."

 11 Woe to those who rise early in the morning
       to run after their drinks,
       who stay up late at night
       till they are inflamed with wine.

 12 They have harps and lyres at their banquets,
       tambourines and flutes and wine,
       but they have no regard for the deeds of the LORD,
       no respect for the work of his hands.

 13 Therefore my people will go into exile
       for lack of understanding;
       their men of rank will die of hunger
       and their masses will be parched with thirst.

 14 Therefore the grave [e] enlarges its appetite
       and opens its mouth without limit;
       into it will descend their nobles and masses
       with all their brawlers and revelers.

 15 So man will be brought low
       and mankind humbled,
       the eyes of the arrogant humbled.

 16 But the LORD Almighty will be exalted by his justice,
       and the holy God will show himself holy by his righteousness.

 17 Then sheep will graze as in their own pasture;
       lambs will feed [f] among the ruins of the rich.

 18 Woe to those who draw sin along with cords of deceit,
       and wickedness as with cart ropes,

 19 to those who say, "Let God hurry,
       let him hasten his work
       so we may see it.
       Let it approach,
       let the plan of the Holy One of Israel come,
       so we may know it."

 20 Woe to those who call evil good
       and good evil,
       who put darkness for light
       and light for darkness,
       who put bitter for sweet
       and sweet for bitter.

 21 Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes
       and clever in their own sight.

 22 Woe to those who are heroes at drinking wine
       and champions at mixing drinks,

 23 who acquit the guilty for a bribe,
       but deny justice to the innocent.

 24 Therefore, as tongues of fire lick up straw
       and as dry grass sinks down in the flames,
       so their roots will decay
       and their flowers blow away like dust;
       for they have rejected the law of the LORD Almighty
       and spurned the word of the Holy One of Israel.

 25 Therefore the LORD's anger burns against his people;
       his hand is raised and he strikes them down.
       The mountains shake,
       and the dead bodies are like refuse in the streets.
       Yet for all this, his anger is not turned away,
       his hand is still upraised.

 26 He lifts up a banner for the distant nations,
       he whistles for those at the ends of the earth.
       Here they come,
       swiftly and speedily!

 27 Not one of them grows tired or stumbles,
       not one slumbers or sleeps;
       not a belt is loosened at the waist,
       not a sandal thong is broken.

 28 Their arrows are sharp,
       all their bows are strung;
       their horses' hoofs seem like flint,
       their chariot wheels like a whirlwind.

 29 Their roar is like that of the lion,
       they roar like young lions;
       they growl as they seize their prey
       and carry it off with no one to rescue.

 30 In that day they will roar over it
       like the roaring of the sea.
       And if one looks at the land,
       he will see darkness and distress;
       even the light will be darkened by the clouds.

 

and if that wasn't enough, Jeremiah did  too!

 5 "Announce in Judah and proclaim in Jerusalem andsay:
       'Sound the trumpet throughout the land!'
       Cry aloud and say:
       'Gather together!
       Let us flee to the fortified cities!'

 6 Raise the signal to go to Zion!
       Flee for safety without delay!
       For I am bringing disaster from the north,
       even terrible destruction."

 7 A lion has come out of his lair;
       a destroyer of nations has set out.
       He has left his place
       to lay waste your land.
       Your towns will lie in ruins
       without inhabitant.

 8 So put on sackcloth,
       lament and wail,
       for the fierce anger of the LORD
       has not turned away from us.

 9 "In that day," declares the LORD,
       "the king and the officials will lose heart,
       the priests will be horrified,
       and the prophets will be appalled."

 

 

Quote:
See above. Whatever works for you to believe a fantastic unrealistic story. You can't say that you didn't have a more logical explanation suggested than the mystical magic you hold to be real.

but this is so much bluster isn't it? Don't you think I see this all the time? Where is your alternative explanation for Daniel? Where is your explanation for the consistency of Isaiah and Jeremiah? Where is your explanation for the prophecies relating to Christ? Why does Bethlehem pop up out of nowhere, or a stem from the rod of Jesse? You call your flailing about "rational"?!

Quote:
The choice is yours!! You can take the red pill and come to reality or you can take the blue pill and think you are eating steak!

I made my choice.......it is borne out by prophecy right up to the current, 'dividing of the land'.

 you see, all this stuff:

I see you took the blue pill.

Hearsay definition from distionary.com

 

1.unverified, unofficial information gained or acquired from another and not part of one's direct knowledge: I pay no attention to hearsay.

 aah! so you've experienced evolution first hand too!!

I could list any number of things you believe which are not part of your direct knowledge..... you're flailing around.

Keep that in mind.

Quote:
As James the Just was a priest and priests could only come from the tribe of Levi, and Joseph in Matthew was shown to be of the tribe of Judah either Mary was of the tribe of Levi or Mary was promiscuous.

'James the Just' is Catholic nomenclature. The notion that he was a High Priest comes only through Hegesippus......and you don't trust hearsay! Since the male line was the legal line it would have made no difference what Mary was.

Quote:
I consider all these prophecies to be wishful thinking, misunderstanding and erroneous.

a restatement of your position is not an argument.

Quote:

Oringinally translated the cliam in John 18:36 was "The original Greek text has Jesus saying something very different: “My Kingdom is not FROM this world”-

were you wishing to draw a distinction?

Quote:
see http://www.liverpool.anglican.org/index.php?p=1102

In this article the author shows it was from his concept of a god for authority.

"shows" is a very bold claim! When Jesus said this:

John 8:58
"I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!"
John 8:57-59 (in Context

they understood his claim precisely

Quote:
However, appearing to be a god may just be incorrectly understood if you don't grasp the technology. Thus. the possibility is open Jesus was an alien from another world, which is what is said here.

There are billions and billions of stars with the possibility of hosting the homeworld of Jesus.

Since Jesus claimed to be not of this world that can only mean he was an alien.

..........and having resurrected he shot off at the speed of light  and hasn't arrived home yet!!!! 

 now you've entirely lost it.........claiming to be rational, you prefer any nonsense to God's actual communication to us. The remainder of your ramblings comprise a self-induced search after diversion. We each have around seventy years to discern what truth is.......short of illness or accident.....on the face of it one would think that would be sufficient time.

 

 

 

'It appeareth in nothing more, that atheism is rather in the lip than in the heart of man, than by this: that atheists will ever be talking of that their opinion, as if they fainted it within themselves and would be glad to be strengthened by the consent of others.' Francis Bacon.


freeminer
Theist
Posts: 304
Joined: 2010-07-04
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:Freeminer,may I

 

Quote:
Freeminer,

may I respectfully call you an idiot and support my claim with the evidence.

The theory of evolution (which may not be what you think it is, btw) is a SCIENTIFIC theory.

Creationism has nothing to do with SCIENCE.

 

Long time ago people-people decided to call certain findings science.  They set up a list of rules and conditions that must be fulfilled for something to be called science.  The two main rules are that any SCIENTIFIC theory must be verifiable and falsifiable.  If any of these rules is not satisfied the theory is not SCIENTIFIC by its definition, want you or not.  Then you theory (creationism or whatever) is just your belief, a product of your imagination.  It may not be bad, but it is different from science. It is not science.

 

For this simple reason that one is science and another is not, placing creationism and the theory of evolution on the  same plate is an act of idiotism.

You advocate 'science'...........and call these bland assertions evidence!!!!!! Verify that codes self-generate, verify that a cow turned into a whale............stories you tell yourself!! According to your prerequisites evolution is not science......... as an advocate of science, I agree!

'It appeareth in nothing more, that atheism is rather in the lip than in the heart of man, than by this: that atheists will ever be talking of that their opinion, as if they fainted it within themselves and would be glad to be strengthened by the consent of others.' Francis Bacon.


freeminer
Theist
Posts: 304
Joined: 2010-07-04
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:It's simpler

jcgadfly wrote:

It's simpler than that, freeminer. You have to choose which promise of God is the one God really meant to keep

From the evidence, he kept neither..

sorry........can't do much about your inability to handle evidence rationally.

'It appeareth in nothing more, that atheism is rather in the lip than in the heart of man, than by this: that atheists will ever be talking of that their opinion, as if they fainted it within themselves and would be glad to be strengthened by the consent of others.' Francis Bacon.


gramster
Theist
Posts: 501
Joined: 2010-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Cut the Crap and Show Your Cards

jcgadfly wrote:

gramster wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

gramster wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

gramster wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

gramster wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

gramster wrote:

In bible prophecy time can be either literal or symbolic. It is important to know the difference. A day can be one literal day, or it can be symbolic for a year. One example is in Ezekiel 4:6 "I have assigned you a number of days corresponding to the number of years of their iniquity". We will also discover that some of the Daniel prophecies can not be referring to literal time and make any sense.

In the bible we also find a month to be equal to 30 days. The flood story gives us a good example of this. Genesis 7:11 the flood event starts on the 2nd month 17th day, and Genesis 8:4 it ends on the 7th month 17th day. This comes out to exactly 5 months. In Genesis 8:24 it says the "water prevailed on the earth 150 days". 150 days/5 months = 30 days.

In Daniel the term Time or Times is also used. The term time is translated to equal one year and times or (two times) refers to 2 years. The word used is "iddan" translated by Strongs Hebrew Lexicoon "a set time: technically a year: time".

As we get into time prophecies we will hold the position that the passage could be literal or symbolic. We will examine both possibilities and see which makes sense.

In other word, the prophecy can be interpreted to fit whatever conclusion is desired.

This issue is why the Bible "prophecies have a lot in common with the "prophecies" of Nostradamus.

Not at all. The prophecies in Daniel are very specific and detailed. A detailed examination will eliminate all but the correct interpretations. That is why it is important to establish sound basic principles.

I have not seen any Nostradamus prophecies that come anywhere close to paralleling those in the bible.

If they are "very specific and detailed" why do they have such varied interpretations (all of them claiming to be correct)?

Let me rephrase your question. If the prophecies in Daniel which are given largely in symbolic terms are very specific and detailed than why do people (who, if you get 4 into the same room can't seem to all agree on anything) have varied interpretations?

Why do scientists so often disagree when examining the same evidence? Why are some people Republicans, others Democrats, and others even Libertarians? That's the nature of mankind. It wouldn't be expected to be any different with Bible Prophecy.

That shouldn't keep us from closely examining the evidence. A close examination will show that there is only one set of powers that this prophecy can be referring to. No other powers on earth will stand up to close examination.

 

Simple, the prophecies didn't come from God. I thought this was going to be hard. See, you forgot to add that if these people believe in the Bible and that it was inspired by God and that these prophecies came from God -they should only have one interpretation. "Thus saith the Lord" shouldn't allow for wiggle room.

Why do scientists disagree when viewing evidence? Mostly because of a suspicion that the evidence is incomplete not that the evidence doesn't lead to the conclusion. Again, if it's evidence from a Gos, shouldn't it be incontrovertible? should really be playing the game of "When God said this he really didn't mean..."?

Not against closely examining evidence - I hope you bring some. I don't expect you'll do this but as a hint - "God said it. I believe it. That settles it." isn't evidence.

Your logic is faulty. You once again fail to use the much touted "critical analysis" made so much a while back.

It doesn't take much gray matter to figure this one out. If God had written these prophecies in a manner in which they would be easily understood by all, it would probably have caused all kinds of problems He would have wanted to avoid.

If a would be ruler had lofty ambitions that conflicted with these prophecies he would likely become very hostile to the writings and the people that had it. Much persecution would likely result and destruction of the writings as well.

If an existing ruler that wanted his kingdom to "last forever" read the prophecies, he would likely react much the same. Not to mention the effect making these prophecies easily understandable by all would have on the outcome of history.

God also needed to be relatively brief. These writings would have to be hand copied and passed down for centuries. God did all these things very well. Those writings would be understand by many at the appropriate time intended. Others would take these prophecies and try to force them to fit their own personal interpretations.

Man simply uses the prophecies to do what he does best. Disagree.

I don't really want to waste too much time on "stupid arguments" that serve only to delay getting in to the prophecies themselves so I won't. I will continue forward in making my case. There is only one interpretation of these prophecies that holds water under close examination. All others will fail.

 

So your God obfuscates information intentionally? Isn't God not supposed to be the one who is the author of confusion?

How does one know when he is being straight with them? Was God spreading a load of bull when he claimed that he loved us and wanted Heaven for us? 

You must be terribly afraid of actually examining the prophecies of Daniel themselves to be throwing out this much bull. It is more than obvious that these prophecies were written in symbolic language. The text itself makes this plain. The beasts represent kingdoms or powers, the horn is the first king etc.

As for God claiming He loves us and wants us to be in heaven, there is no reason to believe this to by symbolic.

Quit throwing crap in the fan. That's all your doing.

As for myself I will continue the examination of the actual prophecies themselves.

Gramps

You mean because I have seem several different interpretations of something written in symbolic language that supposedly  was perfectly clear to both Daniel and Nebuchadnezzar?

Or because I don't like to accept interpretations that are made that are based on fear of the EU or the old Common Market? 

If I'm using a fan, it's because I'm clearing away your crap. It seems I need a larger fan.

Dear Mr Gadfly,

Enough of this drivel. We are far enough along now. The main purpose of examining Daniel is to prove that God exists. We don't need to do a complete study on eschatology. I have put forward the nations I believe these prophecies clearly point to in Daniel 7. I have also asserted that no other set of powers can rationally fit this prophecy. You have continually asserted that there are many interpretations that fit this prophecy. Well, let's see one. Now it is time for YOU to suggest the interpretation that YOU believe will hold up best to critical analysis. We will analyse both and see where the evidence falls.

If you can not show that my view does not work, or come up with another one that does, than we have it. If one, and only one interpretation fits this prophecy, than somebody in the 2nd century BC, or 3rd as freeminer was so helpful to point out, or 6th as the book claims, predicted the rise and fall of Rome. They also predicted that Rome would not be conquered by the next great empire, but be divided and stay that way. They mentioned 10 kingdoms that would come out of the breakup of the Roman empire, and that three would be wiped out. The other 7 would be around when the Lord comes. The evidence of history proves this to be true.

Only God could do that. Either prove my interpretation wrong, come up with a viable alternative, or admit that God exists. Blogging is easy. Now is the time to cut the crap and show your cards.

I appreciate Freeminer's patience in allowing an old man the opportunity to have first crack at this. It means a lot to me. I also appreciate all of the good info he has brought to the site. When I get the opportunity I look forward to exploring his info more. But for now I will continue my focus on Daniel.

I have made my challenge. Prove my view wrong, Come up with a viable alternative, or acknowledge God. As for me, I see God's fingerprints all over the book of Daniel.

YOUR MOVE.